Hyde Housing Association Limited (202344221)

Background

1. The lease requires the landlord to arrange buildings insurance and recharge residents through service charges. In December 2023, the resident queried the insurance costs, saying they appeared excessive and asking for the “premium amounts paid.” The landlord acknowledged delays in handling her query and failing to provide the required information. In its final response, it awarded £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The resident told us that she remains dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about buildings insurance.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about buildings insurance.

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

Reasons

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.

What we have not looked at

4. We do not investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges. The resident’s concerns relate to the level or increase of the insurance charge and whether this was reasonable, so the complaint falls in this category. We have not investigated this aspect of the complaint and therefore cannot comment on whether the amount should be reduced. The tribunal or court are likely to be best placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise. Our investigation has focused on the appropriateness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

What we have looked at

5. The lease requires the landlord to provide insurance. Under the lease, the landlord is also responsible for determining a fair and proper proportion of the insurance premiums for the resident to pay.
6. In her complaint to us, the resident said that the landlord’s complaint responses:
   1. Provided only figures and percentages rather than the copy of the premium amounts paid.
   2. Did not give a breakdown of how it calculated the charges.
   3. Provided reinstatement figures which did not make sense to her.
   4. Did not answer her question about whether she could obtain her own insurance.
   5. Had not paid the compensation that it offered.
7. Through our assessment of the landlord’s responses and the information it provided to us, we note:
   1. There is no evidence that it shared copies or made provisions for the resident to inspect documentation showing her insurance premiums. While we recognise that the landlord did offer information about what this was, it appears that it overlooked the resident’s desire to inspect the documentation (and invoices) herself. It is clear to us that this was requested as the resident was not confident that the landlord did not inflate the costs. Providing access to the documents would have given the resident some assurance.
   2. The landlord did provide a breakdown of how it calculated the charges. The resident said she did not understand this information. We recognise these are complicated calculations. As noted earlier, we cannot assess the level or reasonableness of the charges and therefore cannot determine whether the cost the landlord shared was fair. However, it did supply a breakdown, and when the resident said in her escalation request that it did not make sense to her, the landlord attempted to clarify the calculations in a different way in its final response letter.
   3. It was reasonable that the landlord shared the reinstatement value with the resident given that it had explained that this was the figure specific to the resident’s property that was used to determine her premium (as a proportion of the total reinstatement value of the entire stock portfolio). It was also reasonable that the landlord explained that it could not share the premium amounts for other neighbouring properties, given that it was not relevant to the resident.
   4. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s question about obtaining her own insurance policy. Although we recognise that it was a condition of the lease that the landlord provides the insurance, and therefore have not found that the resident was blocked from exploring a more affordable policy, the landlord should have responded.
   5. The landlord was clear in its complaint responses that the resident needed to confirm acceptance for it to pay the compensation. We have not seen evidence that the resident did so, and therefore the landlord did not pay the compensation.
8. We have therefore concluded that the landlord responded to most aspects of the resident’s complaint and adequately redressed the resident for the failings it found. However, it did not provide her with the evidence of the insurance premiums paid, and it did not address her query about whether she could obtain her own insurance. For these reasons, we find there was service failure.

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.