Vivid Housing Limited (201915956)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915956

Vivid Housing Limited

23 December 2020


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 refers to:
  • The Landlord’s response to the Resident’s dispute regarding the management fee included as part of his service charge.
  • The Resident’s request for a standing order form to be sent when his service charge is due to change.
  • The Landlord’s response regarding the Resident’s boundary fence belonging to his neighbour.
  • The Landlord’s complaint handling of these matters. 

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Further complaints

  1. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”

  1. The Resident’s complaints to the Landlord regarding the boundary fence between his and his neighbours property, his request to be provided with regular statements and his concern that he is no longer receiving invitations to communal meetings and any further correspondence is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman can only consider matters which have been raised with the Landlord as a formal complaint and which the Landlord has issued a final response to, under its internal complaints procedure. This is so the Landlord can address the complaint itself, before the Ombudsman becomes involved. Therefore, this investigation is unable to consider the Resident’s complaint regarding these matters.
  2. It is noted that the Landlord issued a stage one response in relation to these matters on 4 November 2020, although it has not issued a final response. The Resident has expressed concern that there have been significant delays in receiving a response to this complaint, it is therefore recommended that the Landlord address this at stage two of its internal complaints procedure and provide a final response on these matters. If the Resident completes the Landlord’s complaint process on these matters and remains dissatisfied once he has received its final response, he could refer the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman. In view of this, the current investigation focuses on the period up until the Landlord’s final response to the Resident’s complaint regarding his request for standing order forms and the dispute regarding his management fee.

Background

  1. The Resident is a leaseholder of the property managed by the Landlord.
  2. The property is a semidetached house.

Summary of events

  1. On 20 December 2019 the Resident wrote to the Landlord and requested that the Landlord send him a standing order form in time for any payment increases in the future so that he could approach his bank. He stated that he paid a monthly service fee for which he felt he received very little.
  2. On 7 January 2020 the Landlord called the Resident and explained that a standing order form had been sent in the post. It would not be able to send a standing order form each time the service charge amount was due to change as these letters were sent out in bulk. It stated that it had put a note on his account to request that a form be sent in future, although it had no way to guarantee this would be done. It offered to set up a direct debit, but this was declined by the Resident as he felt he could not trust the Landlord to manage this correctly. The Resident explained that he paid an administration and management fee but did not feel he received any services from the Landlord to warrant these. He stated that he had been arguing this charge for several years and requested to raise a complaint about this matter.
  3. The Landlord called the Resident on 14 January 2020 and explained that it would send him a breakdown of the services which the management fee covered. The Landlord’s records show that the Resident remained dissatisfied at the Landlord’s response and wished to approach this Service. The Landlord explained its internal complaint process and the Resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two of the Landlord’s procedure. The Resident confirmed that he was still dissatisfied that he needed to pay a management fee as part of his service charge as he felt he did not receive any services from the Landlord.
  4. On 15 January 2020 the Landlord issued a stage one response to the Resident and explained that, as previously discussed, it would not be able to send a standing order form automatically when changes are made to his service charge. It was currently looking into this matter to see if it would be able to facilitate his request in the future. It explained that in the meantime, he could call its customer service team to request a form and this could be sent when required. The Landlord went on to explain the services included as part of his management fee. It stated that the management fee was a contribution towards general housing management and advice related to his property including boundary disputes, antisocial behaviour, resale and assignment of lease requirements and procedures, subletting requirements and procedures, permission and improvement guidance as well as legal fees and audit fees. It stated that the charge was not calculated specifically for the Resident’s property, but for all its leasehold and shared ownership stock and then tiered appropriately depending on the type of property. It stated that the Resident could escalate his complaint further should he remain dissatisfied.
  5. The Landlord issued a final response to the resident on 12 February 2020 and explained that it would not consider the Resident’s escalation to stage two of its internal complaints procedure. It stated that the Resident ‘s request not to pay a management fee as part of his service charge was outside the Landlord’s policies and control. It stated that the Resident’s Lease allowed for a management fee to be charged, and again explained what this fee related to as discussed in its stage one response.

Assessment and findings

The Resident’s service charge

  1. This Service cannot look at the level of service charge or determine whether this should not be charged to the Resident as this is best suited to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who make determinations on disputes about the liability to pay a service charge. If the Resident has further concerns about the level of his service charge, he could pursue this matter with the Tribunal. As such, this Service will investigate how the Landlord responded to the Resident’s concerns and whether this was reasonable and proportionate.
  2. The Landlord has confirmed that the Resident’s Lease allows for a management fee to be charged. The Lease states that the Resident is required to contribute to common costs and charges as assessed by the Landlord to cover costs incurred as a result of the provision of services. The Resident has expressed concern that the Lease provided by the Landlord is not in his name; it is not unusual for the Lease to be in the name of the first leaseholder with other subsequent leaseholders having a deed of assignment. As the Resident is now the leaseholder of the property, he would be liable to pay for service charges as stated in the original lease. The Landlord would be expected to provide a reasonable explanation of any service charges and what services were included as a result of this charge.
  3. The Landlord responded in a timely manner and explained that the management fee was a contribution towards general housing management and advice related to his property as well as legal fees and audit fees. It stated that the charge was not calculated specifically for the Resident’s property but for all of its leasehold and shared ownership stock and then tiered, depending on the type of property. It may have been helpful for the Landlord to provide the Resident with a more detailed breakdown of how his charge was calculated at this stage to provide further context, although, the Resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this as providing a further breakdown would be unlikely to change the outcome.
  4. There is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord is acting against the Lease by charging the Resident a management fee as part of his service charge. If the Resident disagrees with the Landlord’s explanation regarding the management fee and his liability to pay this, he could pursue this with the Tribunal as previously discussed.

 

The Resident’s request for a standing order form

  1. The Landlord would be expected to provide its residents with clear information in relation to how their rent and service charges could be paid. It should consider a resident’s request for an alternative payment option and provide a reasonable explanation as to why this could not be done should this be the case.
  2. The Resident had requested that a standing order form be provided when his service charge was likely to be changed in order for him to approach his bank with the new requested amount. The Landlord sent the Resident a standing order form but explained that it could not automate this each time the service charge changed in future due to its systems. It stated that the Resident was able to call to request this form should he need one in future and it would investigate whether this service could be provided going forward. This Service cannot decide whether the request for the form falls under the management fee as this would involve the interpretation of the Lease which would be a legal matter. If the Resident has further concerns about this matter, he may wish to seek legal advice.
  3. This Service cannot order the Landlord to change its system as we cannot interfere with the day-to-day running of the business. The Landlord has acted reasonably by providing a reasonable explanation as to why it would not be able to provide a standing order form automatically when required by the Resident and has also informed the Resident of other payment options available to him such as a direct debit.  it is understood the Resident does not want to set up a direct debit for his monthly payments and he is within his right to refuse this. The Landlord has also stated that it would be investigating whether this service could be provided in the future which is a reasonable step in improving its service for its residents. 

The Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it has a two stage complaints process. The resident should receive a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If the resident is dissatisfied with the Landlord’s response, they can request for their complaint to be escalated to stage two of the process. The Complaints Policy states that the Landlord can decline a request for a complaint to be reviewed at stage two if the resident has not provided specific reasons for requesting a review, solely seeks a resolution that is outside the Landlord’s control or policies, or is unreasonable. Should the request be declined, the reasons should be fully explained to the resident and the resident should receive a response within 20 working days of the complaint being referred for review.
  2. The Landlord responded to the Resident’s initial complaint in a timely manner in line with its Complaint Policy and addressed the Resident’s concerns reasonably. It declined the Resident’s request that his complaint be escalated to stage two as the Lease allowed for a management fee to be charged, it went on to explain what services the management fee covered again to provide additional clarity.
  3. The Landlord decision to decline the Resident’s escalation request was reasonable as it explained that the issuing of a management fee was in line with the Resident’s Lease and therefore in line with its policies. It also acted reasonably in line with the timescales set out in its Complaint Policy. There has been no service failure by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s complaint regarding the management fee included as part of his service charge and his request for standing order forms.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s dispute regarding the management fee included as part of his service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of the Resident’s request for standing order forms to be sent when his service charge is due to change.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling of these matters.

Reasons

Service Charge

  1. The Landlord has provided a reasonable explanation as to why the Resident is required to pay a management fee and details of which services this fee applies to. As above, if the Resident has further concerns in relation to the level of service charge or his liability to pay this he could consider contacting the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Standing order forms

  1. The Landlord has provided the Resident with a standing order form on this occasion and confirmed that these would be available on request in future. It has provided a reasonable explanation as to why this would not be sent automatically and has stated that it would take steps to investigate whether it may be able to provide this service in the future to benefit its customers.

Complaint handling

  1. The Landlord has acted accordingly in line with its Complaints Policy and responded to the Resident within a reasonable timescale. It was reasonable for the Landlord to decline the Resident’s request for his complaint to be reviewed at stage two of its internal complaints procedure in line with its policy.

Recommendations

  1. The Landlord should consider responding to the Resident’s further complaints at stage two in order to provide a final response in relation to his concerns about his boundary fence and statements.