Hyde Housing Association Limited (202419392)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord in June 2024 as she had not received a response to her query dated 31 August 2023. She had requested a breakdown of works which resulted in a £250 bill. The landlord had by then sent the resident a further demand for another £250. She complained about this, the level of service charge increase, and the lack of response from the landlord. The resident also complained as the landlord had not provided her with the 2022/23 annual statement or any documentation. The landlord provided these in its stage 2 response, but the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and compensation offer.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s service charge account and enquiries.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. Reasonable redress was offered in recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account and enquiries.
4. Reasonable redress was offered in recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling.

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 has referenced the service charge increase and whether this was reasonable, so it falls in this category. We have not investigated this aspect of the complaint. A 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 account and enquiries

6. The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time it takes to respond, and the transparency of, and information available on how to make a complaint. Specifically, she raised that she had not received a full response about the £250 charges and why the service charges have increased so much since she moved in.
7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had incorrectly recorded the resident’s service charge account as fixed instead of variable. The lease clearly shows the account is variable. We acknowledge that mistakes happen, and we will address what the landlord did to put things right after it identified the error.
8. The landlord acted reasonably when it reversed the deficit from the 2022/2023 account as at this point in time, the landlord had been treating the service charge as fixed. It reversed the charge on 15 July 2024. We understand this is when the landlord recognised its mistake.
9. The resident asserted that the landlord breached section 7.5 by not producing the 2022/2023 annual service charge statement. We understand this concern. However, as the landlord had the charge recorded as fixed, we also understand it would not have recognised its obligations to produce the statement. While late, it produced this when requested.
10. The landlord treated the year 2022/2023 as a fixed service charge and provided the resident with the annual service charge statement requested. This approach was not in line with the lease, but the landlord acted on its mistake by apologising and not charging the resident the deficit. It also provided the annual service charge statement when requested. The landlord acknowledged its wider failings and provided compensation.
11. Landlord’s usually have a one-month deadline to respond to a resident’s request for a summary or for invoices, assuming the data is available at the time. On 31 August 2023, the resident requested to see a full breakdown of the 2022/2023 works including dates. The landlord provided this on 6 September 2024. We recognise the landlord had a month to provide the information, once the 6 months after the end of the accounting period was over, so by 31 October 2023. Its response was therefore 10 months late.
12. The resident repeated her request on 24 June 2024 and again in her escalation request. We accept she asked for the same information in August 2023. If the landlord had been unclear about her request, it should have contacted her to establish what she wanted.
13. The landlord did not explicitly acknowledge its delays in providing the information. In its stage 1 response, it gave a summary explanation about the 2x £250 charges and a repair it had not charged the resident for. It also said the details of the work within the service charge would be sent later. This was provided on 6 September 2024.
14. The resident queried the 2x £250 demands the landlord sent her. She raised the first on 31 August 2023. The landlord responded on 27 November 2023 and said the charge was for cyclical decorations carried out in November 2021. The resident confirmed the same day that she was not a leaseholder at that time. The landlord confirmed on 17 June 2024 it would remove the charge. The landlord’s service charge policy states it will provide a response to service charge enquiries in 30 days. It missed the timeframe on her first enquiry by 2 months and the second by 5.5 months.
15. The resident queried the second £250 demand on 2 June 2024. The landlord responded in line with the timeframes in its service charge policy for this enquiry. It contacted her on 24 June 2024 and confirmed her lease required her to contribute to the cost of the neighbour’s front door.
16. The landlord in its complaint responses confirmed it had a new customer relationship management system and had taken a number of improvements to prevent similar situations arising again. It awarded the resident with £500 for its overall failings. This comprised of:
    1. £100 for its complaint handling (dealt with below, therefore removed from this calculation).
    2. £100 for the resident’s efforts.
    3. £150 for her distress and inconvenience.
    4. £150 for its reply to delays (recorded in the stage 1 response as repair delays).
17. The landlord awarded £400 to the resident for this aspect of the complaint. It recognised that things had gone wrong and took reasonable steps to put things right. Had the landlord not arrived at this decision itself, we would have found failings and ordered a similar level of redress. Therefore, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account and enquiries.
18. There is no doubt the resident had to chase the landlord to receive responses to her enquiries. We recognise the time and effort she has taken doing this and researching this topic. We recognise she believes more compensation is due, however we use our remedies guidance to establish the level of recompense. With this guidance, the landlord has awarded slightly more compensation than we would have, despite recognising the landlord did not fully acknowledge its failings. Therefore, we do not believe further compensation is required.
19. Our finding of reasonable redress does not minimise the resident’s experience. We recognise that, had the landlord not offered this level, we would have found maladministration. The resident experienced poor customer service from the landlord, and this was not a positive start to her homeownership journey with it.
20. In discussion with the resident, she was clear she wanted the landlord to provide more detailed information with its charges. This will form a recommendation of this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

21. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 24 June 2024 and acknowledged it on 9 July 2024. Its complaint policy requires an acknowledgement in 5 working days, so the acknowledgment was 6 working days late. The landlord also issued its stage 1 response 8 working days late. These delays were outside its complaint policy and the Code.
22. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained how the resident could raise a complaint, apologised for its complaint handling failures and awarded £100.
23. The landlord recognised its failings and took steps to put them right. As such we find there was redress prior to our involvement which satisfactorily recognised the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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.