One Housing Group Limited (202329336)

Background

1. The resident pays a variable service charge for services which are outlined in her tenancy agreement. The resident advised in 2015 the landlord refunded her £650 for service charges it should not have charged her for. The resident raised her concerns the landlord had started charging her for these services again which brought about this complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to concerns about service charge errors.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about service charge errors.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to concerns about service charge errors

5. The landlord gave contradictory answers in its complaint responses for which items it will charge the resident. This left the resident confused and unsure.
6. After the landlord recognised it had charged her for services she had not received, it appropriately credited the resident’s account – but on a weekly basis. This continued for at least 4 years until the landlord returned the credit. In our view, this was not a fair approach. The amount owed was the result of an incorrect charge and not an overcharge. As such, we believe the landlord should have offered the resident a direct (and single payment) refund.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

7. Appropriately the landlord apologised and provided the resident with an explanation why it overlooked her escalation request. It offered reasonable compensation for this failing. This resulted in reasonable redress for the resident.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow it.

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.

8. The landlord’s final response letter answered most of the resident’s escalation points. It told the resident what services would remain, how she benefitted from these, what the total refund was, and how it would apply this.
9. We note the landlord did not advise which services it had removed. We recognise the resident could look at the previous service charge breakdown for this. However, as this was part of the escalation request, the landlord should have provided a response.
10. As a resolution the resident asked us for clarity on what the landlord is and is not charging her for. Therefore, she remained unsure on this point. We can understand the resident’s uncertainty, as while the landlord’s final response letter clearly stated the services it was charging her for, it contradicted its stage 1 response. In its stage 1 response it said it would remove external cleaning and M&E maintenance charges, amongst others. The final response letter said, it was charging the resident for both these two services, amongst others.
11. We recognise the landlord sent these complaint responses a year apart. Also, that it advised it was only charging the resident for some elements of the external cleaning. However, the responses should give the resident clarity on what she is liable for. We could understand if she has lost confidence in the landlord because of this confusion.
12. Additionally, the landlord noted in the escalation acknowledgement the resident asked it to provide her with clarity on the “charges and arrears account.” As the landlord did not address this in its final response letter, we have made an order for it to confirm the services it removed and the balance of the resident’s account now it has applied the refund.
13. The landlord acknowledged it should not have charged the resident for certain services. It calculated what it owed the resident through its end of year accounts. It then credited the resident’s account on a weekly basis over the years.
14. The landlord’s service charge policy says it will carry over any credit or deficit from the end of year accounts into the following years charge. It confirmed this in its published end of year accounts and its complaint responses. This would seem like an appropriate response when there are credits or deficits for charges the resident is liable for.
15. However, in this situation the landlord had been incorrectly charging the resident for services it should not have been. As such, we believe it should have reimbursed the resident in one payment after it had reconciled the accounts. This was not an overspend but an incorrect charge, and the resident lost the ability to use (or save) this money elsewhere.
16. A resolution the resident asked us to provide was the refund due, which the landlord clarified in its final response letter. By the resident asking for this again, it emphasised her confusion over the weekly credits.
17. We recognised the resident advised that she had brought this concern to the landlord’s attention over many years. The landlord itself in its stage 1 response acknowledged that she had been disputing the charges for some time.
18. It recognised its errors, but there remained confusion through its complaint responses. In addition, it would have been more reasonable to credit the resident’s account in one lump sum after the reconciliation.

19. The landlord sent its stage 1 response in line with its complaints policy.
20. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint, despite her requesting this on 29 March 2023 and followed this with a telephone call on 25 April 2023.
21. We noted a sentence in the resident’s escalation request. She said, “I have been completely shut down and ignored on numerous occasions when attempting to dispute my charges.” While we do not believe the landlord ignored the escalation request on purpose, unfortunately its actions would have reinforced the resident’s belief.
22. We recognise mistakes are made and once we contacted the landlord in March 2024, it opened the escalation request and acted in line with its complaints policy. This was an appropriate response given the mistake it made.
23. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £250 for the escalation delays. This is approximately what we would have ordered for a failure of this nature (as set out in our remedies guidance). As such, we find that the landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting things right.

Learning

24. We encourage the landlord to use this report to consider issuing residents with full refunds when it charged for services it should not have. This is different to when services were received, and the account reconciliation resulted in an overpayment.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. We did not find any failures with this.

Communication

26. There were occasions when the landlord did not progress the resident queries, such as the escalation request or providing the service charge breakdown. We would remind the landlord about the implications of these oversights.