Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202316938)

Background

1. The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. He sold his share of the property in March 2023. Following the sale, he requested the landlord refund him the credit balance on his service charge account. The resident complained about the length of time it was taking the landlord to provide a refund.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of service charges.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of service charges.
   2. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of service charges

4. There was a delay in the landlord providing a refund of the service charges. The landlord acknowledged failures and offered compensation that reasonably resolved the complaint.

How the landlord responded to the complaint.

5. There were delays in the landlord’s response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay. It offered compensation that reasonably resolved the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered.

6. The resident has raised issues regarding a separate complaint he has made with the landlord. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident escalated his complaint which concerns fire safety issues to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate, as this complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.

What we have considered.

7. The resident requested a refund of the credit balance on his service charge account on 4 April 2023. He then had to chase the landlord and submit further requests before the landlord provided a refund on 7 August 2023.
8. There is no information within the landlord’s policies that we have been provided with which give a specific timescale for it to provide a refund of service charges. In its final response, the landlord said it aimed to provide a refund within 6-8 weeks. In this case, it took the landlord approximately 18 weeks to provide a refund. The timescale taken for the landlord to provide a refund was excessive and unreasonable. This caused the resident time and trouble due to pursue the matter.
9. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologised for the delay in its final response. The landlord provided the amount of compensation the resident had requested when they escalated the complaint to stage 2. It did not provide a breakdown of its compensation offer of £600. The landlord’s compensation offer was more than we would have awarded using our remedy’s guidance as a basis to calculate an amount which would be proportionate to the level of failing and the impact of that failing on the resident. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

10. It took the landlord 62 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 54 working days to respond at stage 2. This was outside the landlord’s response timescale of 15 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 which was provided by its complaints policy. The resident had to chase the landlord and seek assistance from us before receiving a response at both stages. This was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, which caused the resident time and trouble.
11. In his escalated complaint, the resident complained the landlord did not assign an independent person to investigate his complaint at stage 1. He considered this was a breach of the Code. He also complained he did not receive the response by post until 13 October 2023.
12. In its final response, the landlord explained its Service Charge and Accounts Manager often investigates complaint at stage 1. It said this person was not involved in the refund process and was independent. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable and addressed the resident’s concern. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concern regarding the date it sent its stage 1 response. The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 29 September 2023, but its internal emails show it did not issue this until 7 October 2023. It said this was because it had to amend the resident’s address before it could send its response by post. It was a failure in the landlord’s response that it did not explain this to the resident and that it failed to amend the date of the letter when issuing this.
13. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its complaint responses. The landlord failed to acknowledge or identify all of its complaint handling issues in its response, however, this did not affect the outcome of the overall complaint. Its total compensation offer of £600 for its overall handling of the residents was proportionate to its failings over both the substantive issue and its complaint handling. The landlord has provided a total amount of compensation which was fair and was appropriate to resolve all of its failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

14. We have identified no issues with the landlord’s record keeping in respect to how it provided its services, or which negatively impacted our ability to investigate the resident’s complaint.

Communication

15. A key issue which led to the complaint was the landlord’s ineffective communication which contributed to the delay in providing the service charge refund. The landlord has identified the root cause of the problem was staffing issues. The landlord may wish to consider how it will provide resilience in its communication to leaseholders where similar problems may present in the future.