Notting Hill Genesis (202345914)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about her service charges with her housing officer on 7 January 2024. Having had no response, she complained to the landlord on 2 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 reply on 28 June 2024. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the case to us. The resident is a variable service charge payer.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The level of her service charges and whether the services provided were value for money.
   2. The transparency of her service charges, how these were calculated, what services were being delivered and how the landlord monitored these.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of her service charges and whether the services provided were value for money is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the transparency of her service charges, how these were calculated, what services were being delivered and how the landlord monitored these.
   3. There was service failure by the landlord in its 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. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of her service charges and whether the services provided were value for money.

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of the service charge increase. We will also not investigate whether the service or the costs themselves are ‘reasonable’ or whether the services provide value for money. If the resident wants to pursue her concerns about these matters, she may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about transparency of her service charges, how these were calculated, what services were being delivered and how the landlord monitored these.

6. We expect landlords to respond to residents’ concerns about their service charges promptly and to provide clear, transparent information about those charges. We also expect landlord’s to present service charge information in an easy-to-understand format, maintain records to evidence service standards and to evidence the standard of service is satisfactory.
7. The resident raised the following concerns with her housing officer on 7 January 2024:
   1. She could not tell how her charges were worked out and questioned why she should pay an audit fee.
   2. She also felt she was expected to accept the charges without any clear information and that she was being charged for services she did not receive.
   3. What steps the landlord took to monitor the services she paid for.
   4. Why cleaning was grouped under estate maintenance one year but listed as a separate cost the next.
   5. What tree works the landlord had completed in the past year and what were planned for the next financial year.
8. The landlord accepted there were several significant issues in its final accounts. It accepted that the 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 final accounts contained errors, including incorrect apportionment figures. It also acknowledged its approach to calculating and presenting costs had been “unhelpful and confusing.” It stated there were inconsistencies between its internal calculations and the figures presented to residents. The landlord said it intended to review and improve its processes.
9. The landlord provided a general explanation of the process it used to calculate service charges. It said some small differences were caused by ‘spreadsheet rounding’. It confirmed the audit fee had been added by mistake. It refunded this. It also said it had reviewed its service charge team and planned to work more closely with housing officers to improve accuracy. However, the landlord did not clearly explain how the resident’s charges had actually been calculated. Nor did it give a transparent explanation for the inconsistencies identified.
10. It is welcome that the landlord was considering how it might improve its service going forward, saying it was “working hard” to improve. However, these were forward‑looking statements. This did not address the resident’s understandable concern that she had not been given a transparent explanation of her current or past charges.
11. In relation to specific services, the landlord provided a general explanation of what estate maintenance, cleaning and communal electricity might cover. However, it provided no information related specifically to the services the resident actually received. It did not confirm whether the resident was or was not paying for services she did not receive, nor did it explain how it monitored contractor performance.
12. The landlord said cleaning was now shown as a separate charge to help residents understand what they were paying for. But it did not explain why this had been done nor did it assure her that she was not being charged twice. It also did not explain why it believed that previously including cleaning within estate maintenance may have lacked clarity.
13. It also gave no meaningful information about tree work. It only said tree work was a “less predictable” cost based on past spending and inflation. The landlord did not say what work had been done nor whether any works were planned.
14. In summary, the landlord accepted there were errors and inconsistencies in how it had calculated the resident’s service charges. However, it did not provide her with the clear, complete, and transparent information she needed to understand and verify those charges. The landlord gave the resident general information about services it provided. However, it failed to give clear, specific answers about the actual services she was paying for or how it monitored those services.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

15. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had treated the resident’s correspondence of 2 March 2024 as a general service charge query rather than a complaint. This was not reasonable. This is because at that point the resident was clearly complaining about the lack of response to her earlier email of 7 January 2024. As such the landlord would have been expected to have responded to her contact of 2 March 2024 under its formal complaints policy, which it did not do.
16. It was not until we wrote to the landlord, following contact from the resident asking for our help, that it provided its stage 1 response. This it did on 28 May 2024, 67 working days after the resident initially logged her complaint. This significantly exceeded the 10 working days timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at that time. The landlord recognised and apologised to the resident for this delay in its response. It also offered £150 compensation, which we are satisfied was proportionate to its failures up to that point.
17. However, it is of concern that the stage 1 response was provided by the same housing officer that the resident had been in contact with prior to raising her complaint. This was confirmed by the housing officer in the stage 1 response.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy states initial complaints will be handled by a resident’s ‘local officer.’ However, the policy goes on to say that if the complaint is about the ‘local officer,’ it will be handled by the local officer’s manager. In this case, as the complaint was clearly about the lack of response by the resident’s ‘local officer’ (her housing officer), it would have been reasonable to expect that the complaint would be handled by the ‘local officer’s’ manager, which it was not.
19. Using the same officer to provide the stage 1 response, whose lack of response was the reason for the complaint being raised, is not consistent with our expectations of impartial complaint handling. By not having the complaint considered by an impartial party risks a conflict of interest, undermining the resident’s confidence in the process.
20. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 May 2024. As such the landlord would have been expected to have issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, in accordance with the timescale set out in its complaints policy at that time. In this case by 17 June 2024. However, there was then a further delay of 9 working days in it doing so, the stage 2 response not being provided until 28 June 2024.

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.