Clarion Housing Association Limited (202417879)

Background

1. In February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to query why it was charging her for fire protection. The resident said the property was residential and she had already paid for a fire door, which the landlord had installed the previous year. She said she did not require this service and therefore should not be charged for it now or in the future. The resident continued to contact the landlord about her concerns and, in October 2023, raised a number of further queries about her fire protection charges after receiving the 2022 to 2023 final accounts. On 2 February 2024, the resident made a formal complaint, as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s responses to her queries. Following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to us for investigation. The resident said she wanted the landlord to remove these charges from her account and agree what she would be paying for in the future, if anything.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns about being charged for fire protection equipment which she did not believe was necessary.
   2. The resident’s queries related to her fire protection service charges.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about being charged for fire protection equipment which she did not believe was necessary is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries related to her fire protection service charges.

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 being charged for fire protection equipment which she did not believe was necessary.

4. We cannot determine whether the fire protection services at the resident’s block are necessary. This is because such matters fall outside of our jurisdiction and require a technical expertise we do not have. If the resident wished to pursue these matters further she may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court, which have the authority and expertise to make binding decisions on these matters.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s related to her fire protection service charges.

What we have considered not considered

5. We cannot determine whether a service charge is reasonable. In this case, this would include if it was reasonable for the landlord to include 2 invoices in the resident’s actual charges. The resident said the work the invoices related to was due to emergency lighting being installed incorrectly. If the residents want to pursue their concerns further, they may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

What we have considered

6. Whilst we cannot determine the above matters we can assess the landlord’s response to the queries the resident raised. We expect landlords to provide clear, timely, and evidence-based responses to service charge queries to enable residents to understand what the landlord is charging them for and why.
7. The resident requested a breakdown of fire protection charges on 4 October 2023.
   This included invoices and dates of works for the relevant period. The landlord provided a breakdown on 9 November 2023. However, it did not include all requested information, especially the works dates. The resident then had to make further requests to obtain this information.
8. The resident raised concerns about whether the works were servicing or installation.
   She also disputed 2 invoices she believed related to remedial works. The landlord said it referred these queries to its Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) team. However, we found limited evidence that the M&E team provided a clear response at that time.
9. The resident chased responses several times between November and December 2023.
   The landlord did not provide a further response until 19 December 2023. It later acknowledged delays in handling the resident’s service charge queries. These delays meant it did not respond within a reasonable timeframe. It also did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively.
10. The resident requested advance notice of works, explaining she did not live at the property. The landlord’s response to this point was reasonable. It said works in communal areas did not require prior notice. It advised the resident to contact it if she wanted updates.
11. The resident also requested a copy of the fire risk assessment. The landlord said it provided the resident with this in March 2024, after liaising with its M&E team. While the landlord eventually provided this document, there was a delay in it doing so.
12. The resident disputed the need for fire protection measures and queried the legislative basis for emergency lighting. The landlord explained the measures were required under fire safety legislation and guidance and stated that, under the lease, the resident was required to contribute to the costs. The landlord acted reasonably in explaining its position and responsibilities for maintaining fire safety in communal areas. It also provided relevant context regarding the building type and applicable guidance. While the resident disagreed, the landlord appropriately set out its rationale.
13. Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed its responses to the resident’s queries. These delays understandably caused frustration and uncertainty for the resident. There is also limited evidence it fully addressed the disputed invoices in a timely manner. As a result, the resident had to chase responses on several further occasions, causing additional inconvenience and ongoing uncertainty.
14. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, we consider both the events that gave rise to the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which the landlord recognised any shortcomings, and the appropriateness of the steps it took to offer redress, are also relevant considerations.
15. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged delays in handling the queries. It also recognised the time and trouble the resident spent chasing responses, as well as the inconvenience caused by the matter continuing for over a year. The landlord apologised and offered £250 compensation for these failings.
16. Having considered all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the landlord’s acknowledgement, apology and offer of £250 compensation were fair and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures. The amount offered is consistent with our compensation guidance, where there has been a significant delay in providing responses which adversely affected the resident.

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.