Clarion Housing Association Limited (202433180)

Background

1. The resident pays a service charge to the landlord which includes an amount for a sinking fund. She asked for clarification on her monthly payment after learning from neighbours she was paying a higher amount.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. the service charge query
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled:
   1. the service charge query
   2. the resident’s complaint

Summary of reasons

Service charge query

4. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial query within the promised timeframe and later gave a generic explanation that did not address her concern. However, it provided clear and detailed responses at both complaint stages, applied an abatement to reduce charges, and offered £250 compensation, which reasonably redressed its earlier failing

Complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged the complaints on time but did not issue responses within the timescales set by its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code. To address the delays, it offered £100 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance, making this reasonable redress.

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 will not investigate

6. The resident is unhappy with her service charge and believes the amount is unreasonable. We cannot decide if the charge is too high or rule on its reasonableness. A court or First Tier Tribunal is better suited to make this decision. She also said the landlord deliberately altered her rent statements, but we cannot investigate criminal matters such as fraud. Our investigation focused on how the landlord handled her query and whether it provided clear and transparent information.

What we will investigate

7. On 19 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord why her sinking fund payment was higher than her neighbours, saying it caused her stress. The landlord acknowledged the query and promised a reply within 10 working days. It failed to respond, and the resident made a formal complaint on 19 March 2024. This delay was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress.
8. On 25 April the landlord replied to the service charge query but did not address the resident’s concern about the difference between her charges and her neighbours’. Instead, it gave a general explanation for an increase in service charges, which was not what the resident had asked about. This failure to provide clear and transparent information added to the distress felt by the resident.
9. The landlord gave a full and clear explanation of the resident’s original query in its stage 1 response and repeated this in stage 2. Both responses were appropriate and provided transparent information about the charges.
10. To resolve the complaint, the landlord offered to reduce the resident’s charges to the lower amount using an abatement from April 2021 to April 2025. It also offered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience, in line with its policy to apologise and put things right quickly when failings occur.
11. The resident questioned whether the abatement was applied to her rent account. We have seen the ‘customer account statement’ which shows the landlord applied an abatement of £114.47 per month. We are satisfied the landlord kept to its resolution offer and, given the circumstances, its resolution reasonably redressed the failure to respond to the service charge query.

12. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged the complaints on time but failed to issue responses at both stages within the timescales set by its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.It sent the stage 1 response after 25 working days, and the stage 2 response after 31 working days.
13. To recognise the impact of the delays, the landlord offered £100 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance, so it was reasonable redress.

Learning

14. It is positive that the landlord identified its failings and offered a fair resolution to address the resident’s concerns. It must ensure that when responding to complaints it keeps the resident updated on any delays, as this can help mitigate any impact.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate. It was able to provide clear records of its actions and communication both internally and with the resident. This meant it could properly investigate the resident’s complaint.

Communication

16. There were failings in communication identified in the handling of both complaints. While the detail in its complaint responses was clear and transparent, it must ensure it proactively updates residents on any delays.