London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202331254)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property, a 2-bedroom first-floor flat, in 2017. The landlord owns the freehold and manages properties nationwide. The resident pays variable service charges. The landlord estimates these charges based on the previous year’s costs and any planned works. It issues a payment request once it confirms the final costs for the year.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s service charge queries
   2. the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was:
   1. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of service charge queries
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct
   3. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord explained its service charges clearly. It clarified the reasons for any increases and told the resident how she could have input into any planned major works. The complaint responses were clear and covered all aspects of the resident’s complaint. That said, it should have followed up telephone communications with an email to ensure the content and context was clear.

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.

Recommendations

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

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

6. We do not investigate complaints about the level or increase of service charge. As the resident’s complaint centres on service charges for insurance, repairs and whether they are reasonable, the complaint is about the level or increase of service charge and so we will not investigate it. The third-tier tribunal or court are more likely to be best placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s service charge policy says that it adjusts variable service charges based on actual costs from the previous year. If costs are higher, it can recover the difference from residents; if lower, it issues a refund.
8. During the years investigated, it issued an estimate of service charges at the beginning of the year, and a request for payment several months after the end of the budget year. The statements are well laid out and include explanations of added items, such as one-off repairs. For this reason we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.

9. The resident told the landlord that she felt threatened as a staff member implied that it had not charged her enough in previous years and it may send her a bill for the difference.
10. The landlord and resident’s views on this call differ. As we have not heard the call we cannot speculate about the context or content of the conversation. The landlord’s records say that it spoke with the staff member who believed that a discussion about the insurance premium was the issue.
11. During the investigation, the landlord said it believed a miscommunication or misunderstanding had occurred. However, it made the situation worse by not sending a follow-up email to summarise the conversation and clear up any confusion. That email could have explained its position and helped reassure the resident.
12. In the stage 2 response, it said that it had learned from this experience and moving forward it would follow up all calls with an email summary. This is positive as it shows that the landlord was open to learning from complaints and adapting its communication.
13. For the reasons above we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

14. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
15. The landlord sent its stage 1 and 2 acknowledgements and responses on time. It also correctly agreed an extension date with the resident at stage 2. This was consistent with the Code.
16. In the complaint responses the landlord clearly explained any added charges and confirmed how it apportioned any repair costs. It also clarified the reason for increasing building insurance.
17. In the stage 2 response it confirmed that the only contact information it held was for a representative. Although it had tried calling the representative on the phone, it did not say that it tried other means of communication. It acknowledged that it should did not follow up any calls with an email. This would have ensured that the context and content of calls is clear, particularly where there is a representative.
18. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, for the reasons above.

Learning

19. The landlord kept clear records of its calls and emails, including internal discussions. However, it did not always follow calls up with a summary email but committed to improve this.
20. There were some occasions where the landlord spoke to an authorised third party rather than the resident. Residents are entitled to ask for a representative. However, if the landlord believes that information may not be reaching the resident, for example where residents are calling back for information it has already provided, it should look at alternative contact methods such as email. This will ensure residents are aware of all relevant information. Landlords should also regularly review contact arrangements and contact details.