Stonewater Limited (202402424)

Background

1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 21 December 2023 as he believed it was overcharging him for fire and refuse disposal service charges. The landlord outlined that it was satisfied it had not overcharged the resident. After our involvement, it issued a further letter concerning the window cleaning charges, again it was satisfied with its charges. However, 5 months later in November 2024, the landlord advised the window cleaning had not been carried out since April 2022. It apologised, took steps to improve its service, arranged a refund, and offered the resident compensation totalling £450.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Resident’s service charge concerns.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge concerns.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges. The resident’s concerns falls in this category. We have not investigated this aspect of the complaint.
6. We are also unable to fulfil the resident’s desired remedy of prosecuting the landlord. The tribunal or court are likely to be best placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise. Our investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

What we have looked at

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge concerns

7. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord as he did not believe it should charge him for the maintenance of fire equipment after it removed the fire alarm.
8. In its stage 1 and final response letter, the landlord provided a clear breakdown and explanation of its fire equipment charges. It explained that the charge included costs for maintenance of equipment in the communal areas as well as testing the emergency lighting. The landlord has supplied us with satisfactory evidence of its fire equipment testing. The resident’s tenancy agreement also confirms that he will be liable for this charge. It was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord declined to remove this.
9. The resident was also concerned about the costs for refuse disposal. The landlord explained that “because of the anti-social elements living in and around your estate the communal areas have been blighted by people fly tipping various items of rubbish in your communal areas and to remove this [the landlord] is required to re charge all the residents.” We recognise that charging for refuse disposal is common practice, and that the resident’s tenancy agreement notes it will charge for “bin storage maintenance” and “estate maintenance and common areas”, however we have been unable to identify the specific provision that allows the landlord to pass this charge on to the resident. Therefore, we do not believe it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to remove this.
10. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the window cleaning, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for matters to be escalated. It was only once the resident had exhausted the complaints procedure and brought his complaint to us that a 3rd final response letter was issued by the landlord within which it:
    1. Apologised to the resident.
    2. Reviewed why it had provided incorrect information and advised it would give feedback to colleagues.
    3. Issued refunds to all affected residents for all communal cleaning costs for the period.
    4. Reviewed its estate services, introducing improvements including a new estates manager, publishing estates information on its website, and working more closely with contractors.
    5. Offered £50 for complaint handling, £50 for providing incorrect information, and £350 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
11. These were positive actions and in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord had corrected the service charge issue, apologised, compensated the resident, and identified ways it could improve its service. The compensation for the distress and inconvenience was appropriate, and in line with our remedies guidance. However, this was outside its complaints process.
12. We have not seen evidence the landlord has the right to pass the refuse disposal charge on to the resident. In addition, the landlord recognised its window cleaning failings after we accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 11November 2024. Therefore, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge concerns.
13. We have ordered the landlord reimburse the resident for the refuse disposal charges and pay an additional £100 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing this matter. We have also ordered the landlord pay the previously made compensation offer of £450 if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 January 2024 and sent its stage 1 response on 2 February 2024. This was 13 working days outside of its published complaint standards. It then acknowledged the escalation request on 7 March 2024 and sent the final response letter on 22 May 2024. This was 31 working days outside of its published complaint standards. The landlord did not acknowledge these delays.
15. In its 2nd final response letter, the landlord stated it had “learned from the Housing Ombudsman” that the resident was unhappy it charged him for the window cleaning. However, the landlord had previously identified this issue in its escalation acknowledgement letter. Therefore, it should have recognised that it had not responded to all the aspects of the complaint.
16. As the landlord did not correctly identify its failings, we found service failure in its handling of the complaint. The landlord’s offer of £50, made outside the complaints process, did not adequately addressed the detriment caused to the resident. We have therefore awarded a further £50, bringing the total in line with the upper end of our remedies guidance for 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.