A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202302870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302870

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

03 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident first contacted the landlord on 26 September 2022 to ask to see the invoices for the financial year 2021-2022, to understand why the actual spend was higher than the estimated service charge amount. The landlord responded on 20 September 2022 with details of how the service charge was calculated, and followed up on 21 October 2022 with a spreadsheet breakdown of all costs covered by the resident’s service charge.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2022 to advise he thought there was an error in the service charge calculation. The resident noted that some charges related to a different block of flats, and that one entry on the spreadsheet did not include information about what that charge was for. The resident requested further information from the landlord regarding these charges. The resident did not receive a response and chased the landlord on 13 November 2022. On 25 November 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint that the landlord had not responded to his service charge enquires, and had not responded to his emails.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 December 2022 to confirm that approximately £7,000 would be removed from the service charge bill and the account would be adjusted the following month to reflect this change. The resident queried what the £7,000 was in relation to as the landlord had not been clear what was being refunded. The resident also asked for a breakdown of costs relating to a service charge of £5,923.40 which was not labelled on the spreadsheet provided, and a breakdown of invoices for lighting and electricity charges. The landlord confirmed it would look into this and contact the resident again shortly.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 January 2023. It apologised that the resident felt he had cause to complain. It assured the resident it would respond to his service charge questions. The resident chased a response on 19 January 2023 and 31 January 2023. The landlord provided further information about the service charge on 31 January 2023 but did not include a breakdown of the electricity and lighting costs as requested. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 14 February 2023, on the grounds that his enquiry had not been answered fully.
The landlord provided its invoices for the electricity and lighting to the resident on 1 March 2023, the resident confirmed this resolved his enquiry. The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 28 March 2023.
The resident made a separate complaint to the landlord regarding its complaint handling of a separate issue. The resident paid for a valuation report as part of his lease extension. On 3 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the valuation report was for internal use only and the resident could not obtain a copy.
The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 14 November 2022. The resident was unhappy that he had been refused assess to the valuation report that he had paid for. The resident chased an update on his complaint on 4 occasions between 28 November 2022 and 20 December 2022 but did not receive a response. On 23 December 2022, the landlord arranged for the surveyor to speak with the resident to answer his questions about the valuation report. The resident confirmed this resolved his original issue, but he was unhappy with how the complaint was handled.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 January 2023. It noted that the resident had now spoken to the surveyor which had resolved the matter. The landlord apologised that it had not been made clear to the resident that he would not receive a copy of the valuation report and it would update its website to reflect this.
The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 9 January 2023, on the basis he was not satisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident asked the landlord to acknowledge his complaint on multiple occasions between 6 January 2023 and 21 February 2023 without reply from the landlord. The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 27 June 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay and cited staffing issues and increased workload. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope

It is understood that the resident’s complaint concerns the information he was provided about the service charges, and the landlord’s response to the queries he raised about the difference in the service charge. We should make it clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated. This is in line with paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent.

Service charge enquiries

The resident first contacted the landlord on 26 September 2022 to request to see the invoices that relate to the communal repairs in the service charge. The resident noted that the actual spend was £16,461.76 was much higher than the estimated £6,219.
The landlord provided a breakdown of the service charge in the form of a spreadsheet. On 23 October 2022, the resident raised the following points:
1. The communal repairs listed appeared to be for a different block of flats and have been wrongly allocated to the resident’s block.
2. The spreadsheet includes costs for car park lighting repairs which the resident believes was an estate charge.
3. One spreadsheet entry did not provide details what the charge was for.
4. The resident requested the lighting and electricity bills.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s 23 October 2022 email, or the resident’s email chasing a response on 13 November 2022. The resident complained on 25 November 2022 that his questions remained unanswered.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 December 2022 to advise that £7,000 would be removed from the service charge, but it did not provide clarity on what this amount was in reference to or why it was being removed. This inconvenienced the resident because he had not received a substantive answer and had to chase the landlord for clarity. The landlord confirmed it would follow up on the resident’s other points raised on 23 October 2022, but did not provide a time frame for this.
The landlord noted in its complaint response that there had been a lack of communication regarding the service charge and apologised. The landlord did not provide the resident with the requested information or any clarity on when a response would be provided. This meant the resident had to follow up with the landlord on several occasions which caused inconvenience and distress.
On 31 January 2023, the landlord provided further clarification to the resident. It stated:
1. £7302.12 had been wrongly allocated as repairs for the resident’s block and would be removed.
2. £8.82 would also be removed from the service charge for bulk refuse removal.
3. The spreadsheet entry that the resident requested more information about was for a repair to the lift.

The landlord did not provide electricity or lighting bills but assured the resident it was still looking into this. It did not provide a timeframe for when it would respond which was inappropriate. The landlord eventually provided the resident with copies of the electricity and lighting bills on 1 March 2023. The resident confirmed that this had resolved his queries.

The landlord’s failed to respond to the resident in a timely manner, provide updates, or offer assurances that it would answer his questions. The evidence suggests there was a timeframe of 5 months from the resident’s initial enquiry to the enquiry being answered to the resident’s satisfaction. This was an inappropriate response from the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord failed to be specific when it did provide the resident with information which left the resident confused and distressed. The resident was evidently inconvenienced by chasing updates and responses that were not forthcoming. These failures amount to maladministration.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted there had been a delay in responding to the resident’s questions about the service charge. It confirmed it had discussed the case with its complaint handling team to prevent further instances of the same issues. It also stated it would provide additional training to staff involved in the matter and was in the process of upgrading its IT services to improve the transfer of information across departments. The Ombudsman welcomes the landlord’s steps to ensure that these failings do not happen again.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation at stage 1. A further £80 was offered after the stage 2 complaint, but this included compensation for the delay in the complaint response; a breakdown was not provided. This service recognises the landlord’s decision to offer compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. For the following reasons, the Ombudsman has determined that its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident.
1. The length of time taken to answer the resident’s enquiry.
2. Its poor communication.
3. The lack of proactive follow up to the resident’s requests for an update.
4. The inconvenience caused to the resident by chasing responses that went unanswered, or were vague.
The Ombudsman’s own awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions .
In light of the landlord’s failings and the stress and inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman awards £250 compensation to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the resident’s service charge enquiry. This is in line with the service’s remedies guidance, available on our website.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling in relation to both of the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints.
Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses were late, and it unnecessarily delayed escalating the resident’s second complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 workings days and responded to within 10 working days. The policy also outlines that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Where the landlord is not able to meet these timeframes, the policy states it will contact the resident to agree a new timescale for response. The landlord will also provide regular updates to residents on the status of their complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ The word ‘complaint’ does not have to be used.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint about the service charges in 32 working days which is not within its 10 working day time frame. The resident’s stage 1 complaint about the valuation report was responded to after 36 working days which is also outside of the advised time frames.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe on either occasion.
In its complaint response about the service charge, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to improve its clarity of its redress by providing a breakdown of the compensation it was offering.
The resident requested that his complaint about the service charges be escalated to stage 2 on 14 February 2023. A response was provided on 28 March 2023. This is 30 working days which is outside of the landlord’s 20 working day time frame for responses to stage 2 complaints. The landlord did contact the resident to advise when he could expect a response, but it did not meet this expectation which is a failure. This inconvenienced the resident as he spent time chasing the landlord for an update on his complaint.
The evidence suggests that the resident had contacted the landlord on at least 3 occasions to request a response to his stage 1 complaint about the valuation report but was not provided with any substantive updates on when it would respond. The lack of responses demonstrates a failure. When it did respond, the landlord advised it had taken steps to update its website and forms to make it clearer that the valuation report would not be provided to residents, and prevent any similar misunderstandings happening again. This was a positive solution and demonstrated good practice.
The resident requested that his complaint about the valuation report be escalated to stage 2 on 9 January 2023. The resident advised his original complaint was satisfied but he wanted to escalate to stage 2 on the grounds of poor complaint handling rather than the original issue. The landlord did not recognise or acknowledge this as an escalation which meant that the resident had to wait longer than necessary for his complaint to be escalated and the final response was delayed. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on at least 6 occasions before the stage 2 complaint was acknowledged on 21 February 2023. The resident was told he would receive a response by 21 March 2023. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to express his frustration with the way the complaint was being handled and to ask when he would receive a response. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 June 2023 which is 117 working days since the resident first requested the escalation, and 86 working days since the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
The landlord did not follow its policy in relation to the resident’s second complaint because it did not provide a response on time, or let the resident know there would be a delay or when a response would be provided. When the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or act on it in a timely manner. This meant the resident was delayed in receiving his final response and was delayed in being able to escalate his complaint to this service. These failures amount to maladministration.
The landlord apologised for the delay in response and cited staff shortages as a reason. The landlord also advised that there had been confusion because the matter was escalated to stage 2 on a different issue to the one responded to in the stage 1. In response to the complaint, the landlord accepted that the stage 1 response was late and that it did not respond to the resident’s chaser emails. The complaint handler no longer works for the landlord, but it had discussed the issues raised with the complaint handling team.
The landlord offered the resident £25 in its stage 1 response and £50 in its stage 2 response for the delay in responding to the complaint. This is in addition to the compensation offered in the complaint responses for the resident’s service charge complaint detailed above. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is not enough to fully put right the detriment for the following reasons:
1. The length of time the complaint responses took.
2. Lack of clarity in its calculation of redress compensation.
3. The poor communication and failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
4. The failure to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint for 6 weeks.
5. The inconvenience caused to the resident by having to chase the landlord for acknowledgement and responses.
The landlord did not demonstrate sufficient learning or reflection in its complaint response in order for it to improve in future complaints. It placed blame on the complaint handler rather than its overall complaint management process.
The Ombudsman considers that £250 compensation is reasonable to address the landlord’s failures in relation to complaint handling. This is inclusive of any compensation already paid to the resident for complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquires about the service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500. Compensation already paid to the resident may be deducted from this amount. The redress is broken down as follows:
1. £250 in recognition of the failure to respond to the resident’s service charge enquiry appropriately.
2. £250 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failures identified.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of the case and identify what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence. This should include how it will improve responses to resident enquiries and complaints. A copy of the outcome of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.