Vivid Housing Limited (202209503)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209503

Vivid Housing Limited

27 March 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s queries about service charges.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property since 25 March 2013. The property is a one- bedroom flat in a sheltered scheme. The resident has no vulnerabilities.
Information has been provided regarding activity that happened more than 6 months prior to the date of the stage 1 complaint. Any reference to these events is for reference purposes and context only and has not otherwise been considered apart from the recommendation below.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in answer to queries she had raised about service charges. It explained that it had contacted residents in 2018 to let them know that wardens would no longer be exclusively present at sheltered schemes. It said that the letter had advised that the wardens work would be completed by a “range of staff” including older persons support workers and the neighbourhood officer. It agreed that the service charge heading on the service charge breakdown for the scheme titled “scheme staff” was now misleading It said that it would change the heading to better reflect the current situation in future years.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 20 April 2021, in answer to further correspondence from her. It told her that it was undertaking a review of service charges and said that it would share this with residents of the scheme on completion.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord sent the estimated service charge breakdown for financial year 2022-2023 to the resident. It included the same charge the resident had queried previously for scheme staff costs.
The landlord, represented by the neighbourhood officer, held a meeting with residents at the scheme on 1 March 2022. The residents asked why they were paying staff scheme costs when there was no staff cover at the scheme. The landlord said that it would come back to the residents with an answer.
On 4 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She marked the letter for the attention of 2 specific senior members of staff and said she was writing in “desperation and anger”. She enclosed the 2 letters that she had received in response to her request for an explanation about staff costs. She said that the landlord had replaced 2 wardens with a neighbourhood officer who attended the property once a month without notice. She said that the landlord was charging a total of £21,456.24 per year to all residents for this. She asked who the range of other staff that were covering the wardens’ duties were and said that she had no knowledge of any older persons support workers. She asked the landlord to investigate it urgently.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 March 2022. It thanked her for her letter of 4 March 2022 and said that one of the members of staff that she addressed the letter to would be “looking into the points you have raised and will get back to you personally”.
An internal landlord email dated 14 March 2022 described the resident’s letter as a complaint. It said that “last year we said that the charge for scheme staff was misleading and we would change it, but we haven’t”.
An internal landlord email dated 15 March 2022 said that it had logged the letter as a service charge query and it was now being dealt with by the neighbourhood officer. It said it didn’t think it was a complaint because the resident had asked it to “look into it”. If the resident was still unhappy following the response, the matter should then be raised as a stage 1 complaint.
Another internal landlord email dated 15 March 2022 said that the scheme staff provision and costs were being reviewed, but not until the next financial year.
On 16 March 2022 the neighbourhood officer emailed the resident to say that she had been passed the resident’s letter. She said that the resident had already been told that the landlord was looking into the charges and that the issue had been logged as a service charge dispute which had a 28-day response time.
The resident responded to the email on the same day. She said that the landlord had told her a senior member of staff was dealing with her query personally and asked why it had now been passed to the neighbourhood officer.
On 21 March 2022 the landlord sent residents the minutes to the meeting held on 1 March 2022. The landlord said that the staff scheme costs had been frozen and were under review.
An internal landlord email dated 31 March 2022 said that it had spoken to the customer at length and told her that the scheme staff costs were still under review.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2022. The landlord logged this as a stage 1 complaint. The resident asked why the landlord had still not resolved the scheme staff costs. She said that the charge had been frozen but residents were still paying for services that they were not receiving. The resident said she had not seen a neighbourhood officer since 1 March 2022 and that she had been raising the issue for 3 years.
A note on the landlord’s complaints case dated 27 April 2022 said that it had called the resident and advised her who would be dealing with the complaint. It said that it had also told the resident that it had asked the new neighbourhood officer to introduce herself.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 6 May 2022. It said that it had identified a service failure because it had not reviewed the service charges since the change in service. It said that it would carry out a full service charge review before the end of July 2022 and would write to residents with the outcome. It also said it had arranged for a neighbourhood officer to attend the scheme every week where possible and it would advertise this on the communal notice board.
On 4 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident in response to a further query. It said that it had established that it carried out consultations when it removed wardens from schemes. It said it had sent letters and held meetings to discuss the implications. The landlord admitted that the labelling of the scheme staff charge was misleading and it should reflect the current provision. It said that it was carrying out a full review for the 2023/2024 estimates.
The resident responded on the same day. She said that she could not remember receiving a letter about the changes, or being invited to a consultation meeting. She asked for a copy of the letter and meeting minutes and said that she did not agree with the decision and wanted to take it further.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 August 2022. It attached a copy of a template letter which it said it had sent to residents regarding the changes in 2018. It said that it could not find any meeting minutes.
A case note on the landlord’s complaint system dated 22 August 2022 said that it had called the resident to discuss the complaint. The resident had told it that the service charge for scheme staff was too high because staff were not present. The grass was not being cut and the windows were not being cleaned. The neighbourhood officer had not been at the scheme and had failed to attend a meeting the previous week without sending apologies to the residents. There was a notice on the door saying that the neighbourhood officer would be away for 2 weeks and she hadn’t returned when she was supposed to. The resident wanted the service charge reduced to a reasonable amount and a breakdown of the charges.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 August 2022 regarding her stage 2 complaint. It said it would call the resident on 9 September 2022 and the final complaint response was due on 22 September 2022.
On 25 August 2022 the resident requested a meeting in person rather than a phone call.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 10 October 2022. It said that it had met the resident on 13 September 2022 and 6 October 2022. It said that the resident was unhappy because the landlord told her that there would be a review of the charges in June 2022 but this had not been completed. The landlord admitted that it could do better and said it would “carry out a root and branch review of the charges”. It agreed that the charges were not transparent and it had not reviewed them. It said it would complete the review by the end of February 2023 ready for the new financial year. It offered £60 compensation for the resident taking the time to meet with it and gave an apology.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident a copy of the service charge review.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised a complaint relating to the level of service charge. While the Ombudsman can consider how a landlord responds to service charge queries or provides service charge information, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is more appropriate to consider disputes about the level of service charges. Because of this, and in line with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will consider the landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries but will not determine the reasonableness of the service charge costs.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ queries about service charges

The landlord’s complaints policy says that in some cases, complaints “may need to be referred to alternative organisations for external review” and gives the example of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chambers). This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord signposted the resident to the First-tier Tribunal in any of its correspondence. The resident has also advised this Service that the landlord did not tell her about the First-tier Tribunal. This was a failing by the landlord which caused the resident a great deal of time and trouble and distress and inconvenience. She contacted the landlord on numerous occasions during which time she may have referred the issue elsewhere.
The landlords Service Charge Policy says that it will:
1. “Review all service charges every year”.
2. “Use the latest available information when we estimate service charges”.
3. “Be transparent about the overall service charge and provide detailed breakdowns and evidence of costs and calculations as requested”.
The landlord changed the staff services provided at the sheltered scheme in 2018. There is evidence that it did not carry out a review of the service charges following this until March 2023. This failure to follow its own policy over a prolonged period caused the resident detriment because she had to take time and trouble to chase the landlord for the review. There is evidence that this caused the resident distress because she said that she was writing in “desperation and anger” regarding the issue.
The landlord promised on numerous occasions that it would undertake a review of the service charges. Even though this was something that its policy said it would do on a yearly basis, it broke these promises. This caused a breakdown in the relationship with its tenant and meant that she had to take time and trouble to pursue the matter.
The data retention schedule for housing associations states that tenants’ tenancy files have a minimum statutory retention period of 6 years.
In 2022, the resident asked the landlord to provide the letter it had sent following the change in service in 2018. The landlord was only able to provide the resident a template of a consultation letter, not a copy of the letter it had sent addressed to her. It also could not locate minutes of the meeting held. This was a record keeping failing by the landlord, which would have caused a further breakdown in the landlord/relationship.
Due to the above failings, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries about service charges.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlords’ complaints policy says that dissatisfaction regarding the level of service charges is not covered by its complaints policy but will be managed in accordance with the service charge policy. The service charge policy says “we’ll investigate queries about service charge statements on an individual basis. When we log a query or dispute, we will call back by close of business the following day to confirm receipt and clarify what is required and then a query has a 10 working day timescale for response and a dispute has a 20 working day timescale. If a customer remains unhappy, they may raise it as a complaint in accordance with our complaints policy and Ombudsman guidelines”.
There is evidence that the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the service charges twice before her letter of 4 March 2022. Therefore, as she remained unhappy about the issue after the first response the landlord should have logged further correspondence as a complaint. However, despite the landlord referring to it as a complaint, it registered her letter of the 4 March 2022 as a “service charge dispute”. This error and failure to follow policy cost the resident time and trouble and distress and inconvenience because she had to keep contacting the landlord. The landlords failure to log the issue as a complaint ultimately delayed her access to this Service.
The landlord advised the resident that a named senior member of staff would respond “personally” to the issues raised in her letter of the 4 March 2022. However, it later passed the letter to the neighbourhood officer instead. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the change so it came as a surprise to the resident that she received an answer from a member of staff that she had already raised the issue with. This showed poor communication by the landlord and a lack of empathy. The resident said she was writing in “desperation and anger” to the senior members of staff but the landlord did not take this into account. This would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience because she felt that the landlord was not listening to her.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord promised to carry out a full review of the service charges by the end of July 2022. However, it failed to do so. This promise meant that the resident did not escalate the complaint because she took the landlords word that it would conduct the review. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed that it may not be able to keep its promise. This was a further failure in communication which caused further delays in complaint handling. This cost the resident time and trouble and denied her access to this Service at an earlier date.
There is evidence that the resident showed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 4 August 2022 when she said she wanted to “take it further”. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint until 24 August 2022. This further delay in complaint handling cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to contact the landlord again.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may offer compensation where there is evidence that a complaint has not been handled in accordance with policy and procedure. It says that this may include situations such as; failure to record an expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and failure to escalate a complaint to the next stage of the process. The landlord did not consider the number of times that the resident had contacted it regarding the issue and the impact that its failings had had on her when assessing the amount of compensation it could offer.
Due to the multiple failings listed above, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
Pay a total of £800 compensation directly to the resident. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £300 for time and trouble.
2. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £200 for poor complaint handling.
Apologise to the resident. A senior member of staff to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings in this case.
Provide relevant support and signposting to the resident should she wish to refer the case to the First-tier Tribunal.
A senior member of staff to carry out a review of this case in order that similar mistakes do not re-occur. This review specifically to cover the procedures in place for the following:
1. Ensuring that service charges are reviewed on an annual basis in accordance with the service charge policy.
2. Ensuring that complaints regarding service charges are escalated appropriately.
3. Ensuring that residents are signposted to organisations such as the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) where appropriate.

This to be completed within 2 months of the date of this report.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

That the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.