Trident Housing Association Limited (202429736)

Decision
Case ID	202429736
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Trident Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 November 2025

Background

The resident and her partner live in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a high-rise building. In February 2024 the landlord sent the resident notice of her new rent and service charges for the upcoming year. She queried the new charges in March 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Service charge queries.
2. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
2. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB is outside our jurisdiction.
3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The response to service charge queries

The landlord unreasonably delayed responding to the resident’s queries and its first response was incomplete. It also failed to uphold its commitments in relation to the actions it agreed to take to resolve the resident’s concerns.

The response to reports of ASB

We have not seen evidence that this issue was raised as a formal complaint with the landlord and exhausted its internal complaints procedure.

The complaint handling

The landlord unreasonably delayed registering complaints about the issues raised and failed to provide reasons for rejecting them.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 03 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the service charge queries. £50 for the time and trouble likely caused by its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 03 December 2025
3	Order The landlord must carry out the follow up actions set out in its stage 2 response dated 21 June 2024. The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to: Outline its findings in relation to the efficiency of the heating system. If it identifies any inefficiencies, outline what actions it plans to take to resolve these and the expected timescales within which any actions will be completed.	No later than 03 December 2025
4	Order The landlord must complete an action plan outlining how it will monitor the cleaning and gardening. The plan should specify the frequency of inspections, the method for assessing performance and how records of these checks will be maintained. The landlord must contact the resident by the due date to: Share its findings and agree a schedule for future updates. Confirm how the resident can contact it if she has any concerns about the level of services in the future.	No later than 03 December 2025
5	Order The landlord must remind its customer facing staff about its process for logging new complaints and the relevant provisions of our Complaints Handling Code (the Code). The landlord must provide evidence of compliance by the due date.	No later than 03 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its process for tracking any actions it agrees to take as part of its complaints responses to ensure timely completion.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 March 2024	The resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord raising concerns about the level of service charge increase, lack of gardening since 2022, and the landlord’s failure to investigate littering on the estate. She also objected to paying for lift maintenance (as she lived on the ground floor), the communal laundry (which she did not use) and the heating system (which she said ran year-round due to poor maintenance).
2 April 2024	The resident chased a response to her concerns. She added that the landlord had refused to give her a paper complaint form when she had first requested one.
16 April 2024	The landlord met with the resident and noted she was unhappy with the lack of response to her complaint. This included ASB concerns relating to items being thrown out of the windows by other residents. It said she also mentioned some maintenance issues which it would raise separately.
26 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it had referred the resident’s ASB concerns to its ASB team for investigation.
29 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction and said: It had investigated the communal garden and found areas of concern in relation to litter it had arranged for its contractors to clear the areas within the next 3 days and promised to monitor this closely going forward all residents paid the same service charges and had the option to use all facilities in the building, including the lifts and laundry room it had activated the resident’s fob to enable her to access the lifts it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about communication regarding the complaint and said it was working to improve this
20 May 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said she could not accept the landlord’s stage 1 response because it had not provided any answers regarding the 106% increase in service charges.
21 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged it had not fully addressed the complaint at stage 1 and had failed to provide sufficient information to explain the service charge increase. It apologised and said it was working to improve the quality of its complaint responses. It explained the significant increase was due to a shortfall carried over from previous years and while it could not reduce this, it would: ask its finance team to review the impact of charges and consider extending recovery of historic shortfalls beyond 1 year review the efficiency of the heating system recommend a calculation be made as to the cost of any inefficiencies and consider whether this could be reflected in the charges recommend that future service charge letters include a breakdown and an explanation of any above inflation increases
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her service charge queries. She wanted to challenge the level of increase. She also said that the landlord: had not carried out gardening and cleaning to a reasonable standard failed to deal with her ASB concerns missed issues in its complaint responses

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained that the level of increase in service charges was unreasonable and unaffordable. We may not consider complaints concerning the level of service charge or the level of increase of service charges. This means our investigation focused on whether the landlord handled the resident’s queries fairly and reasonably in the circumstances of the case. We have also considered whether it followed any relevant policies. If the resident remains unhappy with the level of service charges, or the level of increase in service charges, she may wish to seek independent advice.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 February 2024 confirming her service charges from 1 April 2024. This was in line with the tenancy agreement which says charges may be reviewed at least once a year and the landlord must give the resident at least 4 weeks’ notice of any change. The landlord confirmed the charges were variable.
The weekly charge increased from £39.86 to £82.27. The letter included a cost breakdown with a line entitled “2022/23 (surplus)/deficit carried forward” which added £1,799.68. This approach was consistent with the tenancy agreement which allows the landlord to carry forward deficits when calculating charges. However, the letter did not provide any further explanation which would have made it difficult for residents to understand why the increase was so significant. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that its letters did not fully explain the increase and said it would look into improving future correspondence, which was reasonable.
On 12 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to query the charges. The landlord met with her a month later, but there is no evidence it provided any answers at that time. It responded to some queries at stage 1, nearly 7 weeks after the resident’s initial contact. It also said it subsequently shared further information but acknowledged this did not include any explanation for the increase.
The landlord provided a detailed explanation for the increase in its stage 2 response. However, this was more than 14 weeks after the resident first raised her queries. The delayed and fragmented handling of the resident’s queries was unreasonable and did not support the landlord’s commitment to transparency which it set out in its service charge policy.
The landlord’s response regarding the lift and laundry room charges was consistent with its service charge policy which confirms all charges will be equally proportioned between residents who can receive the service (including those who have access to the service even if they choose not to make use of it). After the resident told the landlord she did not have access to the lift area, it acted reasonably by activating her key fob.
The service charges included charges for gardening and cleaning. The resident said she has been raising concerns about the level of these services for some time. This is supported by the landlord’s records which show the resident raised these concerns as early as June 2023 and chased a response on several occasions. While there are emails showing the landlord arranged to meet with the resident in October 2023 and January 2024 to discuss the concerns, it has not provided any details of the discussions or actions taken to resolve her concerns.
The resident raised the issue of cleaning and gardening again as part of her complaint in March 2024. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged there were areas of concern in the garden containing litter and said it would clear them within 3 days. The landlord has not supplied evidence to show the area was cleared within the promised timescale. It also said it would monitor the area going forward, however it has not provided evidence of any regular checks.
The landlord said it appointed a new contractor in June 2024. It said this was done to ensure that residents receive a standard of service reflective of the charges paid. The evidence shows the contractors cleared the area on 4 July 2024 and again 9 months later. There is no record of any activity in between, so it is unclear what services, if any, were provided during that period.
In cases where residents raise concerns about service levels, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to carry out regular inspections, maintain records of any issues identified, and document the actions taken to address them. The absence of such monitoring records indicates the landlord did not effectively oversee the service.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the heating system, the landlord said it would review its efficiency and recommended reflecting this in future service charges. It also said it would ask its finance team to consider extending the recovery period for historic shortfalls. However, the landlord confirmed it had not followed up on these promises. This meant that not only did it fail to uphold its commitments, but it also failed to evidence that it ensured the heating system was working as intended.
As a result of the failings identified, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. We have ordered it to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures which adversely affected the resident. We have made additional orders for the landlord to put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her ASB concerns regarding litter throwing. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. When the resident raised her concerns about litter throwing, the landlord opened an ASB case. However, there is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of that case. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.
If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, she would need to raise this as a formal complaint via the landlord’s complaints process.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s records show it received communication from the resident regarding the level of cleaning on 27 June 2023. We have not seen the contents of this, but the landlord noted it as an “official complaint”. On 20 July 2023 the landlord said the matter was not recorded as a complaint and that “the resident has not received any communication as of today”.
There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to outline its reasons for not accepting the complaint. This was not in keeping with its policy which says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and in instances where it does not accept a complaint, it will provide an explanation detailing the reasons.
A similar issue occurred with the concerns the resident raised on 12 March 2024. She submitted a complaint form. Her concerns included dissatisfaction with the standard of service provided, but the landlord did not initially raise this as a complaint. It told us the reason for this was because there was no service failure identified. It is unclear how the landlord satisfied itself there was no service failure without investigating the issues raised.
While the resident confirmed the landlord told her it treated her concerns as an enquiry, there is no evidence it detailed the reasons why, which again was not in line with its policy. Moreover, the landlord’s service charge policy confirms that any objections to service charges will be handled via its complaints framework. Therefore, according to its policies, the resident’s concerns raised in March 2024 should have been logged as a complaint. The delay in doing so meant the landlord issued its stage 1 response 20 working days outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord admitted it missed some of the resident’s concerns at stage 1, leading to further inconvenience and frustration. It apologised, which was reasonable. The resident said additional issues were still missed at stage 2. We understand the landlord spoke with the resident twice before issuing its stage 2 response, which was a reasonable step to clarify the resident’s dissatisfaction. However, the landlord has not provided records of those conversations, so we cannot confirm whether the resident asked for any points to be included that were not reflected in the response.
The landlord unreasonably delaying registering complaints about the issues raised and failure to provide reasons for rejecting them amounted to service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failing by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

Landlords should ensure that expressions of dissatisfaction are recognised and logged as complaints in line with the provisions of the Code. This helps to ensure concerns are addressed promptly and fairly, and that learning can be captured to improve future service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Spotlight report on service charges highlights the importance of landlords maintaining clear and consistent records, including diary sheets, when managing service charge disputes. Had the landlord kept accurate record of its checks, it would have enabled it to evidence the standard of service provided.
Landlords should ensure they keep records of conversations with residents, including telephone and face to face interactions.

Communication

The landlord has acknowledged it had not communicated effectively regarding the reasons for the above inflation increase in the service charge and said it would review future correspondence which is a positive step.
The landlord has also confirmed it is working on improving its complaint responses.