A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202308664)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308664

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

14 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat, and the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 7 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a query about his estimated service charges. He said the estimate was “riddled” with errors, and specifically challenged the amount charged for electricity and insurance. He asked for a breakdown of how the costs were calculated, including supporting evidence, such as invoices. It does not appear the landlord responded to his query at the time.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 26 March 2023, and said he had “no response whatsoever” to the queries he had raised about the service charges.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 20 April 2023, and upheld the resident’s complaint. It gave a breakdown of its handling of the issue and apologised for a “failure in communication”. It explained that the turnaround time for service charge queries was 20 working days, and apologised the resident’s query was not answered within that time. It set out that it could not provide a “breakdown of quotations” as the service charge for that year was still an estimate. It said it would send actual charges in September 2023, and could provide a breakdown then. It offered the resident £130 in compensation for its handling of the matter.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 24 April 2023. He said that his queries from February 2023 were not answered. He asked for evidence of how it had calculated the service charge estimates.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 9 June 2023. It upheld the complaint, apologised for its handling of the service charge queries, and its complaint handling delay. It accepted it had not provided a response to the service charge queries until that day, via a phone call. It said it would provide a follow up response in writing. The landlord made an increased offer of £255 for its handling of the issue, and the complaint handling delays.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 12 June 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 June 2023 with a response to his service charge queries that were raised in February 2023. It supplied explanations to his queries, and supporting invoices from its energy supplier.

Assessment and findings

Service charge queries

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy states that it aims to respond to service charge queries within 20 working days.
  2. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about his service charges. It is not within our remit to determine whether service charge was payable, or the reasonableness of the charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) (Property Chamber).The resident is advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should he wish to do so.
  3. As part of his stage 2 complaint, the resident asked the landlord to reduce his management fee. The landlord responded to his request in its stage 2 response, and set out that it would not reduce the fee. As set out above, it is not within the remit of this Service to determine the reasonableness of the refusal, as this is a matter for the FTT. Instead, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to his queries, and whether the responses were made in line with its own policies, and were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. The resident raised his service charge query on 7 February 2023, and there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to his query at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter that caused the resident an inconvenience. The resident was cost time and trouble when he chased the landlord for a response to his query on 27 February 2023. Again, we have seen no evidence that it responded to his query at this time, or within the timeframe set out in its policy. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter that increased the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response, of 20 April 2023, appropriately accepted its communication about the issue was poor, and apologised for its handling of the queries. While reasonable to do so, that its response did not provide an answer to the resident’s specific service charge queries was inappropriate. At this point 51 working days had passed since the resident’s initial query, well outside of the target timeframe set out in its policy. That it did not provide a response to the specific queries raised was a further failing in its handling of the matter. This inconvenienced the resident further, as he was waiting an unreasonable period to get a response to the queries.
  6. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord set out that it would contact the resident to discuss his specific queries by 4 May 2023. We have seen no evidence to indicate this happened. This caused the resident a disappointment, as the landlord did not do something it said it would as part of its complaint response. The resident was cost further time and trouble as he chased the landlord for a response to his queries again on 4 May 2023.
  7. As with its stage 1 response, the landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 June 2023, did not provide an answer to the resident’s queries. Its comment that it had provided a verbal response that day is noted. However, that the resident had not received a formal response setting out its position, with the appropriate supporting evidence, was unreasonable. The landlord did not send its written response until 23 June 2023. This was a further delay that increased the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised, and made an increased offer of compensation, for its handling of the issue. The complaint response set out what it would do to improve its service, and how it planned to prevent similar failings happening again. This showed learning, and was appropriate in the circumstances.
  9. That the landlord set out its position on reducing the management fee was also appropriate, and evidence it had given the resident’s request due consideration. It is not within the remit of this Service to determine whether the landlord’s position was reasonable, only whether its communication about its position on the matter was reasonable. However, it did not set out that the resident could challenge its position by taking his case to the FTT. This was a shortcoming in its response. It is noted that the landlord’s estimated, and actual, service charge letters included information about the resident’s right to take a case to the FTT. However, that it did not include this information within its complaint response was inappropriate.
  10. Overall, the resident waited 94 working days for a substantive response to his service charge queries. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the target timeframe set out in its policy. The landlord accepted that its handling of the issue was poor, showed some learning, and appropriately apologised. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to advise the resident of his right to approach the FTT, which was inappropriate.
  11. It is unclear how much of the landlord’s compensation offer was for its handling of this issue, as its increased offer included compensation for its complaint handling. It had not sent its formal response to the queries in writing at the time of its stage 2 response. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the matter was still outstanding at the time of its final compensation offer. We have therefore determined its compensation offer did not fully put things right for the resident. As such we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and an appropriate series of orders are set out below.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy states that it will send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will progress a complaint to stage 2, unless an “exclusion applies”.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 18 working days after the resident complained. This was outside of the timeframes mandated by its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). While not an excessive delay, that the landlord did not apologise for the delay was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by a delayed complaint response. That he was not offered redress for the delay was inappropriate.
  3. When the resident asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2, on 25 April 2023, the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint at that time. This was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced a protracted complaints process, and this caused an inconvenience. The resident was cost further time and trouble by needing to chase a stage 2 complaint response on 4 May 2023.
  4. The landlord’s response, of 5 May 2023, to the resident’s email is of concern. It set out that the complaint would be “checked” to determine whether it should be investigated “formally at stage 2, or reviewed again at stage 1”. While it is noted the landlord did escalate the complaint to stage 2, this comment is of concern. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord considered taking the complaint back to the start of the complaints process. This is evidence its practice at the time was not in line with the approach mandated by the Code. The Code states “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That the landlord considered not escalating the complaint was inappropriate, and evidence it operated a protracted complaints process at the time.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 31 working days after the resident made his stage 2 complaint. That the landlord apologised and offered redress for the delay at stage 2 was appropriate. However, the response offered no explanation of what caused the delay, or what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. This lacked learning, and the landlord missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident.
  6. As set out above, it is unclear how much of its increased compensation offer was made for its complaint handling delay at stage 2. The landlord failed to offer appropriate redress for the delay at stage 1, and failed to show appropriate learning about its complaint handling delays at stage 2. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £255 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s service charge queries.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord’s reminds its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
    1. A meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and put things right for the resident.
    2. Offering appropriate redress for admitted failings, including complaint handling delays.
    3. Escalating a complaint to stage 2 in line with the approach set out in the Code.
    4. Giving a breakdown of how the compensation has been calculated. This will help provide clarity to the resident.