Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413115)

Background

1. The resident pays a variable service charge. She raised queries and concerns about the charges. She complained about the annual charges added to her account in April 2023, a deficit added in September 2023 and about the landlord’s responses to her queries. She remained dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s complaint process because she felt it had not resolved her concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries and concerns about her service charges.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries and concerns about her service charges.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

6. The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that happened or comment on all the information we reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Handling of queries and concerns about the service charges

7. The resident raised queries about her service charges after buying the remaining shares in her home on 31 March 2023. From May 2023, she expressed concerns about the time the landlord took to respond and said it had not answered her queries. The landlord’s records show it gave a further response on 2 September 2023 explaining how it had calculated the charges. We have not seen the response. The resident told us she did not recall receiving it and the lack of a response was partly why she later complained.
8. Later in September 2023, the resident received her end of year statement for 2022-23 (the Actuals). She asked the landlord to explain a £726.81 deficit added to her account. The landlord responded on 7 December 2023. It was reasonable it apologised for the delay in responding. It attached a breakdown of the Managing Agent’s (MA) costs, supporting invoices and budget plan. In our view, the landlord gave a reasonable response to the request to explain the deficit. It also gave contact details should the resident wish to raise further queries. There is no evidence she did so at this point.
9. In February 2024, the resident received the estimate for her 2024-25 service charges. On 2 March 2024, she complained about the administration fee added to her account in April 2023 which she felt was a mistake. She also complained she was still waiting for a response to her queries from May 2023 about increased charges. She said the explanation of the deficit added in September 2023 had not been clear. She asked why she was paying for car parking and why the service charges had increased so much.
10. In its stage 1 response of 28 March 2024, the landlord said the administration fee added in April 2023 was correct. It confirmed the dates the resident had raised queries and said it had responded to them in September 2023. However, there is no evidence it investigated why the resident said in her complaint she had not received a response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have at least attached its response of September 2023.
11. It gave a general explanation of what factors led to increased charges which was reasonable given the resident had not raised concerns about specific items increasing in her charge. It also gave a good general explanation of how it calculated and apportioned service charges.
12. The stage 1 response gave a good explanation of what the Actuals were and confirmed the landlord had sent the resident a breakdown of the MA’s costs in December 2023. It was reasonable the landlord gave an explanation to show it had checked the deficit added in September 2023 was correct.
13. However, it incorrectly said that only residents who had parking spaces were required to contribute to the upkeep of the car park. The resident’s lease confirms that, while she does not have a designated car parking space, she has the right to use the car park and is obliged to pay towards the upkeep of it. The landlord gave incorrect advice in its response because it did not have access to her lease when providing it. This mismanaged the resident’s expectations because the landlord said it would remove the charge if her lease showed she did not have a parking space.
14. In her escalation request of 28 April 2024, the resident said the charge added to her account in April 2023 (£2639.39) was more than the estimated charge she was notified of (£2318.88). She again expressed dissatisfaction in the time the landlord took to respond to her queries. She said she still did not understand the reasons for the deficit added in September 2023. She attached a copy of her lease and asked the landlord to remove the charge for upkeep of the car park. She also asked the landlord to give a more specific explanation of the increases in her service charges.
15. In its stage 2 response of 5 June 2024, the landlord said its administration charge in April 2023 had been wrong. It was appropriate the landlord credited the resident’s account to correct the charge, apologised for its mistake and gave £250 compensation for it. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have also checked if the service charge added in April 2023 matched the estimate, and explained reasons for any difference, given the resident raised this in her escalation.
16. It was reasonable the stage 2 response acknowledged the delays in responding to the resident’s queries and gave further explanation of how her service charge had increased due to the MA’s charges. But the explanation was not clear because it said the MA had changed how it apportioned its charges but did not explain why it had done so or how the change affected the resident’s charges. It did not give further explanation of the reasons for the deficit added in September 2023 even though this was part of the resident’s escalation.
17. The response said the landlord could not remove the charge for upkeep of the carpark. It inaccurately said this was because the lease did not confirm the resident did not have a parking space. The landlord should have referred to the terms of the lease that required the resident to pay towards the upkeep of communal areas including the car park.
18. In summary, the landlord appropriately resolved its mistake in charging the wrong administration fee in April 2023 and gave some explanations of the service charge increase and deficit of September 2023. However, its explanations did not fully address the resident’s queries. It did not address why the charge in April 2023 appeared to be more than it had estimated and gave inaccurate advice regarding the charge for upkeep of the car park. This amounts to service failure.
19. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay further compensation in recognition of the failings we have identified. We have ordered it to explain the amount added to the resident’s account in April 2023 and give further explanation of the deficit added in September 2023.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord acknowledged its stage 1 response of 28 March 2024 was late. It did not send us its acknowledgement letters so we cannot determine the exact delay but it would have been between 3 and 8 working days depending on when it acknowledged the complaint. It was reasonable the landlord apologised for the delay and gave £50 compensation for it.
21. It also acknowledged its stage 2 response of 5 June 2024 was late. It would have been between 2 and 7 days late depending on when it acknowledged the escalation. It was reasonable the landlord apologised for the delay and gave a further £75 compensation for it.
22. The delays at both stages were not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Complaint Handling Code. But there is no evidence the resident was disadvantaged by the short delays. In our view, the landlord’s apologies and compensation awards were sufficient redress.

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.

Recommendations

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