Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202513892)

Background

1. The property is a maisonette within a block that receives a maintenance service. The resident complained after learning that the on‑site caretaker (estate officer) was working at another estate one day per week, which she believed reduced the service at her estate. The resident was concerned the change was made without prior communication, lacked transparency, and raised doubts about whether service charges accurately reflected the service being provided.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of service charge related communal maintenance.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of service charge related communal maintenance.

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

Reasons

4. The resident raised concerns about the level of the service charge and whether it was reasonable. However, it is important to clarify that we are unable to consider complaints about the amount of service charge or determine whether charges are reasonable or payable. Our role is limited to reviewing how service charge information was communicated, including the clarity, timeliness, and adequacy of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries. We cannot assess the level of the charges or direct the landlord to remove, reduce, or refund them. The resident may wish to seek advice from the First‑tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on these matters. Nonetheless, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge enquiries.
5. The trial arrangement under which the estate officer worked at another estate for one day per week did not require a formal statutory consultation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 20 consultation is only required where there is a significant cost impact, such as an increase in service charges, qualifying works, or a new long-term agreement. Reallocating an existing employee’s time without increasing costs or changing the service charge structure does not meet these thresholds. The landlord confirmed that the resident had consistently been charged for 4 days per week of the estate officer’s time, with no increase in charges or change to contractual arrangements.
6. The landlord also maintained that there had been no reduction in the level or quality of service delivered. Core duties remained unchanged, and services continued to be provided in line with the lease, including maintaining, cleaning, repairing, and keeping communal areas tidy and in good condition. On this basis, the change did not amount to a material reduction in service.
7. However, the landlord accepted that its communication should have been better. From a resident’s perspective, the estate officer’s absence one day a week could reasonably have appeared to be a reduction in service. The landlord acknowledged that it would have been good practice to inform the resident in advance that the arrangement was a trial and to reassure her that service levels and charges would not be affected.
8. At both stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord partially upheld the complaint. It apologised for the lack of communication, confirmed that service charges had not been miscalculated, and agreed to monitor time allocation through additional timesheets. While the resident did not have a right to see individual employee timesheets, she was entitled to inspect service charge accounts, and the landlord’s failure to proactively direct the resident to this information contributed to distress and inconvenience.
9. Although the complaint was partially upheld at both stages, the landlord did not offer any redress beyond an apology. Given the circumstances and the identified failure of service in communication, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation. As such, compensation has been awarded to the resident in line with our guidance.

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.