Peabody Trust (202324261)

Background

1. From March 2020, the resident made repeated requests for service charge breakdowns. On 21 March 2023, she raised a complaint because she had not received the information. The resident remains dissatisfied with how her requests for information were handling and the information that she has received to date.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of service charge queries.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of service charge queries.
4. The landlord offered a reasonable level of redress to recognise its handling of the complaint which, in our opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord identified multiple failings in its handling of the service charge queries, but its compensation was not sufficient. It also has not provided evidence that it has shared the statement breakdowns promised in the stage 2 response, despite the length of time that has now passed.
6. The landlord identified its complaint handling failures and provided sufficient compensation in relation to the failures.

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.

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 did not investigate

7. We understand that the resident’s underlying concern was with the level of increase in the service charges. However, we do not investigate complaints about the levels of increases or reasonableness of service charges. For consideration of the reasonableness of the charges and level of increase, a court or First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider this.
8. The records show that the resident began requesting information about her service charges earlier than 2020. The Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with their landlord within a reasonable period, which is usually within 12 months of the issue occurring. As the resident did not complain until 2023, however, the scope of our investigation is limited to the 12-month period leading up to the formal complaint in April 2023. Any reference to previous events is for context only.

What we did investigate

9. On 21 April 2023, the resident made a formal complaint about a lack of response to earlier requests in February and March for service charge information for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and estimates for 2023. The email referred to attached evidence of the earlier requests, but this was not provided to us. We have seen evidence of attempted calls and emails to the resident on 4 May 2023. However, we have not seen the content of those emails. We therefore cannot determine whether the landlord acknowledged the complaint or responded to the information request.
10. However, the resident made a further request for the same information in June 2023. This suggests that any information provided in May 2023 did not meet her request. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the request in June 2023.
11. During this period, the landlord did not provide clear or timely communication about the requested information. The resident requested a summary of costs under Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. When such a request is made, the landlord should provide the available summaries within 1 month. The landlord did not acknowledge the request. As a result, the resident made repeated requests for the same information.
12. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2023. It said it had sent booklets to the resident on 5 May 2023 for financial years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. This would have met a Section 21 request made in April 2023. However, the resident said she first requested this information in February 2023. This meant the response did not meet the required timescale and the landlord did not acknowledge this failing.
13. The response explained that the landlord was obliged to provide a summary for the 12-month period prior to the resident’s request. It said that as the request was made on 24 April 2023, the landlord had attached a more detailed transaction list of the costs that made up the 2021-2022 audit only. The landlord acknowledged delays and awarded £125 compensation, including £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience. The response did not address earlier requests referenced in the April 2023 complaint. This was a missed opportunity to address the concerns fully at that stage.
14. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 March 2024 to escalate her complaint. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 17 June 2024. It acknowledged the stage 1 response had not considered all correspondence on the case. It also said it had not recognised requests for service charge breakdowns from 2020.
15. The landlord apologised for the multiple failures identified in the complaint. It awarded £600 compensation which included £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord also agreed to send the requested breakdowns for the 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 relevant costs incurred. It said it was waiting for copies of 2019, 2022 and 2023 accounts from the managing agents. It said it would provide them once they were received.
16. The landlord acknowledged the failings and attempted to rectify the issues by providing compensation and promising to provide the breakdowns requested. However, the compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience was low given the number of failings and impact to the resident. The resident has told us that she has not received the breakdowns as promised. We asked the landlord to evidence that this was sent and to confirm the date on which the information was shared but it has not done this.
17. In our view, there was a clear issue with the resident’s record keeping and communication throughout this case. The landlord took too long to share the information it did up to the time of its final response, and it is unreasonable that the resident has still not received the additional information it promised it would share.

18. The resident first made a complaint on 21 April 2023. In the stage 1 response dated 29 August 2023, the landlord said it treated this contact as an enquiry. It said it did not register the contact as a complaint. The email sent on 21 April 2023 should have been treated as a complaint as per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The resident used the complaint portal to raise the issue and referenced how she had made 2 previous enquiries for information via different routes that were not acknowledged by the landlord. The landlord did not acknowledge this failing in the stage 1 response.
19. It took 90 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not follow its complaint policy at stage 1. The policy said the landlord should log a complaint within 5 working days and a response within 10 working days. The policy allowed an extension only if agreed with the resident. The landlord did not discuss or agree an extension with the resident. The delay in responding did not align with the policy requirements.
20. On 1 October 2023, the resident attempted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She pointed out that the transaction summary did not provide the information she had requested. She also said she had requested service charge breakdowns since March 2020. The resident chased the escalation on 16 October 2023, but the landlord did not respond to the resident. This delayed the resident in completing the landlord’s complaint process, added to the time and trouble that the resident experienced and meant she had to continue to chase responses from the landlord.
21. The resident escalated her complaint again on 25 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on 3 April 2024. It provided an update on 28 May 2024. The landlord apologised for delays in allocating the case and said it aimed to reply within 20 working days. The landlord did not discuss or agree an extension with the resident. It issued the stage 2 response on 17 June 2024. This was 180 working days after the original escalation request. This was unacceptable and delayed the resident in completing the complaints process and bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman.
22. The stage 2 response acknowledged the multiple complaint handling failures. These included failing to escalate the complaint when first raised. It also included delays, lack of communication, and not addressing early service charge enquiries. The response also said the landlord had not signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
23. The landlord awarded the resident £300 compensation for complaint handling. We considered this reasonable because the landlord accepted the failures and offered compensation in line with the remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord would usually be expected to have access to the records the resident was asking for and therefore should have been able to provide the information soon after it was requested. The ongoing failure to do this suggests poor knowledge information management.

Communication

25. The landlord did not respond to the resident on several occasions. Communication with residents should be regular and consistent while issues are ongoing.