West Kent Housing Association (202419826)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419826

West Kent Housing Association

28 August 2025

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 the resident’s queries about the service charge.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3–bedroom flat in a purpose built block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 4 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to request meter readings for the communal area because he considered that the service charge was high. He also asked the landlord to provide justification for:
1. The window cleaning service charge and why residents in the ground floor flats were not charged this.
2. The service charge cost of the emergency lighting in the communal area.
3. The service charge cost for the door entry system.
4. The management fee charged.
On 8 March 2024 the landlord advised that the windows were cleaned twice annually and that it could not remove this charge because it would mean the communal windows would not be cleaned. On 20 March 2024 it provided a further response. It stated it was reviewing the cost of the communal electricity and would provide an update when it could. It said the emergency lighting charge included the cost of testing and the running costs of the lighting in the communal area. The charges for the door entry was charged to all residents who accessed the block via the door entry system, and maintenance costs would vary by block depending on what repairs had been required. Finally, it stated that it charged a management fee to cover the cost of administering its services to the resident’s block.
On 21 March 2024 the resident requested a breakdown of the communal electricity charges and the management fee. On 3 April 2024 the landlord provided the requested information. On 7 April 2024 the resident requested further information about the electrical consumption of each item in the communal area, he also advised he did not want to pay for window cleaning and asked if the door entry system charge should be subject to the management fee.
On 17 April 2024 the landlord advised it could not provide the detailed breakdown the resident requested but outlined the items that were included in the electricity charges. It stated that its electricity provider charges a commercial rate for the communal area. This rate is charged to the resident, and the landlord was unable to alter the rate. It confirmed that it charges a management fee to cover the cost of managing and administering the service charges, including the communal electricity. It declined to remove the service charge for window cleaning and confirmed that the door entry system was subject to the management fee.
On 18 April 2024 the resident complained. He expressed frustration that:
1. The cost of the communal electricity was high.
2. The landlord charged a management fee in relation to the electricity.
3. He was being charged for window cleaning that he did not want.
4. Door maintenance did not previously incur a management fee, but now it did.
On 7 May 2024 the landlord responded. It stated it had reached out to its electricity provider to discuss the electricity cost and would let the resident know when it received a response. It was continuing to look into the management fee. It advised it would not be removing the charge for window cleaning as it had a duty under the tenancy agreement to maintain the communal areas. Finally, it noted that it was entitled to charge a management fee for the door entry system and it had decided to do so. On 9 May 2024 the resident escalated his complaint because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and felt the landlord was making a profit from the management fee attached to the communal electricity.
On 4 June 2024 the landlord phoned the resident and explained its engineer had not found a fault with the communal electricity to explain the high usage. It also explained that it would be offering all residents a reimbursement of the management fee for the door entry system because it had recognised that it had not given sufficient notice of the charge. The landlord outlined that it was not making a profit from its management fee and the fee was used to cover its own costs, it also advised that window cleaning was not charged to the ground floor residents because they did not have access to the communal area. The resident asked the landlord to explore using motion sensor lights in the communal area to save electricity, the landlord agreed to consider this in its final response.
On 28 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. It provided a window cleaning service and it needed to charge for this. The ground floor flats did not have access to the communal area so were not charged for the communal window cleaning.
2. An engineer had investigated the electrics in the block and found no faults.
3. It accepted it had not notified residents of the addition of a management fee for the door entry system, it would refund this to all residents.
4. The management fee is for the contact, administration, and invoicing associated with the service charges. It was not making a profit from charging this in relation to the electricity.
5. Communal lighting must be continuously on during hours of darkness for the safety of residents and visitors, so it would not be changing this to motion sensor lights.
The resident referred the matter to us because he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses to his queries. He requested that the landlord remove the management fee and the window cleaning charge, he also asked for the communal electricity charge to be reduced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We will not investigate complaints that concerns the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This report will therefore not determine whether service charges that the resident has queried are reasonable or payable but will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

The resident’s queries about the service charge

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord can charge a service charge. It may make changes to the service charge after giving 1 months’ notice to residents. The cost of services will be divided equally between the properties concerned.
When the resident first asked the landlord to provide further information about the service charges, it responded within 4 days and followed this up 12 days later with more information. It outlined what the service charges included, an explanation for why some charges were different across different blocks, and why it was charging the management fee. This was a clear and appropriate response.
The landlord provided breakdowns for the communal electricity in response to the resident’s assertion that this was too high, and outlined what items fell under the communal electricity. It also took steps to discuss the matter with the electricity provider, and investigate if there was a fault with the system which was causing the high usage by instructing an engineer to investigate. This was an appropriate response. The landlord also contacted the resident once its engineer had investigated to share its findings, rather than waiting until its final complaint response. This meant the resident’s expectations were managed at the earliest opportunity.
While we cannot comment on the appropriateness or reasonableness of the management fee, we can consider how the landlord communicated with the resident. The landlord outlined its justification for the fee to the resident clearly. It was understanding of his concerns and made sure that the resident knew what the fee was for. While we understand that the resident is unhappy with the management fee being applied, we consider that the landlord has acted appropriately in its correspondence with the resident.
The landlord recognised when it had made an error in its application of the management fee in relation to the door entry system. It acknowledged it had not given the correct notice of the change to the charge and offered a refund. The landlord took a proactive approach to address and rectify the matter, which was appropriate.
The resident noted that he did not want to pay for the communal windows to be cleaned, and had reported that not all residents in the block were being charged for this. The landlord outlined that it had an obligation to manage the communal areas and this included the windows, so it needed to clean them. It also explained why the ground floor residents of the block did not pay for window cleaning. The tenancy agreement states the landlord can charge the resident a service charge, this means the landlord was entitled to charge the resident for window cleaning. The landlord’s explanation was clear and it demonstrated it understood the resident’s concerns.
When the resident asked the landlord about the emergency lighting in the communal area, the landlord provided its rationale for the cost and the need for the lights to be continuously on during hours of darkness. The resident asked the landlord to consider the use of motion sensor lighting instead to reduce the cost, the landlord clearly outlined its position and the safety reasons behind its decision. This was appropriate.
Overall, the landlord communicated clearly and in good time with the resident, and provided reasoning for its positions. It took steps to investigate the communal electricity cost and demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. Additionally, it was proactive in offering a refund of the management fee for the door entry system when it realised it had not applied this correctly. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge.