The Guinness Partnership Limited (202200391)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200391

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 August 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The increase in the resident’s rent and service charges.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the service charges.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Having carefully considered all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is considered to be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The increase in the resident’s rent and service charges.
4. The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the increases in rent and the service charges levied by the landlord in relation to projected and actual costs. Paragraph 42d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek independent legal advice should she wish to pursue this option.

Background

5. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a medium-rise block and the resident had an assured tenancy, which began on 20 August 2018. The landlord’s records show that the tenancy ended on 8 January 2023 and the resident advised this Service on 11 February 2023 that she was no longer a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 February 2020 to notify her of her new rent and estimated service charges for 2020-21.
7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2021 to provide the annual service charge statement showing the actual costs for 2020-21. The letter explained that the resident’s service charges were not changing and that any adjustments required would be reflected in the next year’s estimated service charges.
8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 February 2022 requesting an explanation about the rent and service charge increases proposed by the landlord.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 March 2022 to advise that she had not received a response to her enquiry dated 28 February 2022 and therefore she requested the landlord to raise a complaint. She stated that she wanted to complain about the rent increase and raised various queries regarding the service charges. She requested the landlord to explain how it had calculated her service charges based on the number of properties on the estate and the apportionments. She also raised specific queries regarding various elements on her service charge statement, including the charges for communal electricity, lifts, pest control, fire safety, the door entry system, the communal TV system and the managing agent charges. She stated that the outcomes she was seeking were for her rent to be adjusted and reduced, for a meeting to be arranged with the board and for her complaint to be dealt with in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 March 2022 and provided her with various information about the rent and service charges in response to her enquiry.
11. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 10 June 2022 in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord said it understood the resident had complained about the rent increase and that she had not received any information in response to an email she sent in February 2022.
    2. The landlord provided information about the following charges:
       1. Electricity.
       2. Communal lifts.
       3. Pest control.
       4. Fire safety.
       5. Door entry and communal TV/aerial costs.
       6. Water safety.
       7. The managing agent.
    3. The landlord stated that although the resident did not have a television, she would still be charged for the TV and aerial system as she still had the option to use them.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February 2023 to explain that it had been contacted by this Service on 10 February 2023 asking the landlord to respond to the resident’s letters sent in 2022. The landlord stated it had responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 10 June 2022 and attached a copy of the response. It added that since then, it had not received and request from the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord explained that as the correspondence from the Ombudsman was significantly outside its 15–working day timeframe to escalate complaints, it would not be considering the request to escalate at that time.
13. On 4 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that she had requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She stated that she had then approached the Ombudsman because the landlord had failed to escalate the complaint. The landlord replied on 8 March 2023 and explained that her email request to escalate the complaint had not been correctly addressed to the landlord and therefore it had not received the request.
14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 April 2023 to confirm it had reviewed the information provided and had now escalated the complaint to stage 2.
15. Having reviewed the resident’s complaint further, the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 April 2023 with its stage 2 reply in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord had registered the resident’s stage one complaint on 17 March 2022. The landlord’s designated point of contact for the resident had provided her with information on 30 March 2022.
    2. The resident had recently supplied the landlord with a screenshot of an email she had sent on 17 May 2022 requesting the landlord to escalate her complaint. However, the email had not included the landlord as an addressee and therefore was not received by the landlord. The landlord confirmed it had checked all its relevant records and could not find the email.
    3. The landlord acknowledged that its stage one reply had been sent outside of its promised timescale due to staff absence, however, it accepted that it had not explained this in the response. The landlord also accepted that its stage one reply had not included any information advising the resident that she would have 15 working days in which to escalate her complaint.
    4. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord had written to the resident on 28 February 2023 explaining that it had refused the resident’s request to escalate the complaint because she had not submitted her request within 15 working days of the stage one reply. The landlord also attached a copy of the stage one reply dated 10 June 2022.
    5. The landlord acknowledged that it should have made an exception regarding the 15–working day timescale for escalation as it had not explained this in its stage one reply.
    6. The landlord stated that it had reviewed its stage one reply and found the information it had provided was correct. However, it accepted that it had handled the resident’s complaint poorly.
    7. The landlord offered the resident £300, which was made up of:
       1. £50 for the delay in issuing the stage one reply.
       2. £50 for failing to provide clear information about the escalation process.
       3. £200 for the personal stress and inconvenience experienced due to the delay in escalating the complaint.
    8. The landlord confirmed it was now including details of the escalation process in all of its stage one replies.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the service charges

16. The landlord’s Service Charge Policy at the time of the resident’s complaint in 2022 stated:
    1. “We will provide tenants and homeowners paying variable service charges access to relevant records if they wish to inspect these”.
    2. “Complaints about service charges are dealt with through our Complaints Policy. We will try to resolve service charge queries and issues as quickly as possible… If the complaint concerns the level of increase to a service charge, or the reasonableness of the amount being charged, tenants and homeowners may seek a resolution to their complaint using the First-Tier Tribunal”.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 February 2022 and requested an explanation about the rent and service charge increases proposed by the landlord. The landlord replied on 31 March 2022 and provided her with information about the increased charges. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had taken a month to reply to the resident’s initial enquiry. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and explained that this had been partly due to annual leave. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s apology was appropriate in the circumstances.
18. The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 17 March 2022 because at that stage she had not received a reply to her initial enquiry. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 10 June 2022 and therefore there was a delay in the landlord replying to the complaint. The time taken by the landlord to reply to the complaint is assessed below under the landlord’s complaints handling.
19. The landlord’s stage one reply provided the resident with information and explanations about the various elements of the service charges she had queried. The Ombudsman has not assessed the validity of the individual explanations given as this would be a matter for the First-Tier Tribunal to consider. However, this Service has reviewed the information provided by the landlord in its response and can see that it provided information on each of the points raised by the resident in her complaint. This was appropriate as the resident had questioned several elements of her service charges and therefore it was important for the landlord to address each one in turn.
20. The events leading to the landlord issuing its stage 2 reply are assessed below in the landlord’s complaints handling. However, the landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it had reviewed the information supplied in its stage one response and had found it to be correct. It was reasonable that the landlord had reviewed the information it had sent to the resident at stage one of the process.
21. Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request for information regarding the service charges. It provided information in response to the resident’s initial enquiry and, although there was a delay in doing so, it apologised for this delay. The landlord then provided more detailed explanations about the service charges in its stage one reply. Finally, the landlord reviewed this information at stage 2 of the complaints process and confirmed that the information had, in its view, been correct.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

22. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if there is good reason it may take longer to respond than the prescribed timescales, however, it will explain this to the resident. It adds that any extension of time will not exceed 10 working days unless agreed by both parties.
23. The complaints policy states: “The customer should request a stage two (review) within 15 working days. We may, in exceptional circumstances, consider a stage two (review) after this time”.
24. The landlord took 57 working days to reply to the stage one complaint, which was considerably longer than its 10-working day target and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord included an apology for this delay in its stage one and stage 2 letters and offered the resident £50 compensation in its stage 2 letter to put things right in terms of the delay. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount offered by the landlord for the delay in issuing its stage one reply was reasonable and proportionate because:
    1. The sum offered by the landlord was in the range of financial redress prescribed in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.
    2. The landlord apologised for the delay.
    3. The landlord had already written to the resident on 31 March 2022 to provide information about the rent and service charge increases.
25. The evidence shows that the resident intended to write to the landlord on 17 May 2022 to request the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. However, the email seen by this Service shows that the email was not correctly addressed to the landlord and the landlord later stated that it had checked its records and confirmed that it had not received the request to escalate the complaint. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, the landlord could not have reasonably known at that stage that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint.
26. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 10 February 2023 to advise that the resident had not received a response to her complaint about the rent and service charge increases. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February 2023 and stated that it did not intend to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because she had not requested this within 15 working days of receiving the stage one reply.
27. Following a further review of the circumstances by the landlord, it agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 in April 2023 and it sent its stage 2 reply on 14 April 2023. The landlord explained that it had not received the resident’s request to escalate her complaint in May 2022. However, it accepted it had not included information in the stage one reply advising the resident that she had 15 working days to escalate her complaint. Therefore, the landlord accepted that it should have escalated her complaint to stage 2 after receiving the letter from this Service in February 2023.
28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code dated 9 March 2022 stated that landlords should confirm in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one “details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer”. Therefore, the Ombudsman agrees that it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have explained in its stage one reply that the resident had 15 working days in which to request the landlord to escalate her complaint. This Service therefore also agrees that it was reasonable for the landlord to make an exception and to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
29. The landlord apologised for failing to provide clear information to the resident about the escalation process and offered compensation of £50 in relation to this omission. The landlord also offered £200 for the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the delay in the landlord escalating the complaint.
30. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
31. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and accepting that it had handled the resident’s complaint poorly. It also acted fairly by apologising for its failings and offering compensation of £250 to put things right (£50 for the omission of escalation information in its stage one reply and £200 for stress and inconvenience). The amount offered was in the range of sums prescribed in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer was therefore reasonable and proportionate.
32. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by confirming that all its stage one replies would now include details of the escalation process.
33. Overall, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its complaints handling because:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding at stage one and offered proportionate financial redress.
    2. It acknowledged its failure in not including information about the escalation process in its stage one reply, apologised and offered proportionate financial redress in its stage 2 reply to put things right.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 42d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the increase in the resident’s rent and service charges is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for information regarding the service charges.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

37. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) rather than the Ombudsman.
38. The landlord provided information in response to the resident’s initial enquiry and, although there was a delay in doing so, it apologised for the delay. The landlord then provided more detailed explanations about the service charges in its stage one reply and reviewed this information at stage 2 of the complaint process.
39. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding at stage one and offered proportionate financial redress. It also acknowledged its failure in not including information about the escalation process in its stage one reply, apologised and offered proportionate financial redress in its stage 2 reply to put things right.