Southern Housing (202416251)

Background

1. After receiving the final service charge account for 2022/23, the resident asked for further information about repair charges in October 2023. He raised a complaint in April 2024 because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and considered the explanations unclear. The resident referred the complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s explanation of, and information provided about, the service charge.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. service charge queries
   2. formal complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. service charge queries
   2. formal complaint

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

Reasons

What we have not looked at

4. Part of the resident’s complaint is about the reasonableness of charges incurred for a repair to the communal roof. We do not investigate complaints about the level of and reasonableness of service charges. The first-tier tribunal or court are likely best placed to consider this given their powers and expertise. 

What we have looked at

Response to service charge queries

5. On 5 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to explain how a deficit had arisen from the 2022/23 service charge account. He also asked to see invoices for repairs to the door entry system and any communal repairs.
6. The landlord responded on 24 October 2023. It explained how the deficit had been calculated and provided screenshots of invoices for each repair. This response was appropriate and aligned with its service charge policy to be transparent.
7. On 24 October 2023 the resident challenged the repair costs. He said he should not be charged for cancelled repair jobs and that the cost of a communal roof repair was excessive. He asked the landlord to adjust the service charge.
8. The landlord said it would respond by 17 November 2023 but did not do so until 27 November 2023. It did not proactively update the resident or explain the reason for the delay. This caused the resident some inconvenience.
9. In its response on 27 November 2023 the landlord provided a clear explanation of the charges. It correctly referred to the resident’s lease and explained it was entitled to recover the service charge for these repairs. It also explained that, as the communal roof repair cost was less than £250 per household, it was not required to carry out a section 20 consultation. The landlord confirmed it would refund a charge for a cancelled door entry job and apply this refund to the 2023/24 service charge account.
10. Following further contact, the landlord agreed on 18 December 2023 to refund additional charges relating to repairs to the door entry system. This was a reasonable step and showed the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns. The resident continued to question the amount charged for the communal roof repair and said he should not be charged for any cancellations relating to the door entry repair.
11. Between 9 January and 30 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord 7 times but did not receive a response. He then raised a formal complaint. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the matter earlier, and the delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 20 May 2024 the landlord agreed to charge the resident for only one door entry repair. It offered £90 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It also clearly explained how the charges were apportioned, why it was entitled to charge for the guttering repair, and why no section 20 consultation was required.
13. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 21 October 2024 the landlord increased the compensation to £180. On 22 October 2024 it provided copies of all invoices relating to the repairs and gave a further explanation of how the charges were calculated. This showed the landlord was actively looking at ways to resolve the resident’s complaint in a balanced and proportionate manner.
14. The £180 compensation is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance for failures that caused an adverse impact but no lasting effect. While the landlord delayed responding on some occasions, even a prompt response would not have changed the outcome.
15. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s service charge queries were consistent and in line with the terms of the lease. The lease allows the landlord to recover expenditure reasonably incurred in repairing and maintaining the property. The landlord explained the reasons for the charges on several occasions, provided relevant invoices, and used its discretion to reduce the door entry charge. Together with the offer of £180 compensation for inconvenience caused by delays, we consider this outcome was fair.

Response to the formal complaint

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It must log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must response at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. At either stage the landlord can extend the response time by an additional 10 working days but must explain this to the resident. This is in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
17. At stage 1 the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the required timescales. While it acknowledged the request for a stage 2 review within 5 working days, it then took 97 working days to issue its stage 2 complaint response.
18. This delay significantly exceeded the landlord’s timescales. There is no evidence to show it contacted the resident to explain the delay or to request an extension. The resident chased the landlord several times between July and October 2024 without receiving a response. The landlord only issued its stage 2 response after we contacted it on the resident’s behalf. This caused the resident inconvenience and delayed resolution of the complaint.
19. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise the impact. Our remedies guidance provides that, where there has been service failure that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, compensation at this level is appropriate. We consider the offer to provide suitable 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.