Notting Hill Genesis (202327302)

Background

1. The resident brought her case to our Service after receiving no response from the landlord in 2022 about her concerns that it had charged her for services it should not have. On 11 March 2024, it issued its stage 1 response, in which it accepted it had incorrectly charged her. It offered the resident £1,800, calculated by multiplying the £450 overcharge for 2023/2024 by the 4 years it had incorrectly charged her. It also added £150 for its complaint handling delays. The resident remained dissatisfied with this as she said she had provided evidence on several occasions. In its final response letter, it recalculated the amount owed based on the historical records. It also made a further compensation award of £270.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that it had incorrectly charged her for services.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that it had incorrectly charged her for services.

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

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that it had incorrectly charged her for services

4. 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.
5. Through its complaints process, the landlord recognised it had overcharged the resident over 4 years. It said it could only locate its 2023/2024 accounts, so it multiplied this by 4. Once the resident supplied the landlord with the account for the other years, it showed this was a reasonable amount for the landlord to refund, as there were charges for which she was still liable. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
6. The resident, in her escalation request, highlighted that the landlord had labelled the £1,800 as compensation when she understood it as a refund. The landlord’s service charge dispute procedure refers to refunds rather than compensation, and therefore we believe it should have reflected this distinction.
7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £150 for its delays in responding to the complaint. In its final response letter, after reviewing the resident’s evidence of approximately 20 chasing emails, the landlord awarded her a further £250 in compensation for this.
8. We consider these to be reasonable and appropriate responses. This would have aligned with our remedies guidance for maladministration, which was a finding we were likely to make. Therefore, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query that it had incorrectly charged her for services.

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.

Recommendation

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