Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Accent Housing Limited (202300518)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300518

Accent Housing Limited

10 December 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. His requests for a detailed breakdown of service charges.
    2. Charges for the replacement of a warden call system.
    3. Communal ground maintenance.
    4. Maintenance issues.
    5. Parking arrangements for residents.

Background

  1. The resident has been the shared-owner of the property, a bungalow in a retirement community (the community), for over 20 years. He pays rent on the portion of the property he does not own. The landlord maintains the community grounds and buildings and provides a warden call service for residents, and charges a service charge (the charge) to residents to cover the associated costs.
  2. The resident’s lease states that the landlord should calculate the charge annually and send the estimate to residents in March each year. Residents must pay the estimated charge and the landlord will then revise its figures later in the year and send the revised total to residents in the annual report in September. Residents must then pay any shortfall or the landlord will refund any overpayment.
  3. The resident has raised concerns about the level of the charge and the standard of works for several years. He wrote to the landlord on 17 October 2022 and 23 January 2023 asking for information in that regard.
  4. In March 2023, the landlord sent the resident the statement of charges for the coming year. The combined rent and service charge had increased from £2,356.32 to £2534.84.
  5. On 6 March 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord saying that he required information about every item on the statement. He said he had raised various issues over the years including repairs, ground maintenance and service charges and the landlord had not recognised any problems. He requested a refund of 50% of all charges paid over the previous 7 years plus other additional sums in recognition of other landlord errors. In the landlord’s response of 15 March 2023 it said it would not return the requested service charge payments or waive any other fees.
  6. The resident came to this Service on 4 April 2023. He said the landlord had failed to provide a detailed breakdown of the charge or explain other costs as requested. He said it had provided a poor service and failed to enforce parking rules and he wanted information about the charge and other costs. He also wanted improvements in ground maintenance and parking.
  7. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 28 April 2023. It gave information about each element of the charge and figures for certain elements going back over 4 years. It answered questions the resident had about the costs of the warden call service and ground maintenance and advised that it would soon carry out works to a bin store. It committed to putting up signage in the car park to deter unauthorised parking.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint in early May 2023 and the landlord responded on 25 May 2023, when it reiterated its position from the stage 1 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Much of the resident’s correspondence concerned the level of rent and service charge being levied by the landlord. However, it is not the role of this Service to determine whether these charges were reasonable. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) has powers to determine whether rent and service charges are reasonable, and whether a landlord has followed the correct procedure to be entitled to recover them. Therefore, the resident would need to make an application to the FTT if this is something he wishes to pursue further (reflected at paragraph 42.d of the Scheme). As a result, these issues are not addressed further in this report. However, we have considered his requests for information around the charges and whether the landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate.
  2. The resident’s correspondence indicates that some of his concerns date back several years, but there is no evidence of him attempting to pursue a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of matters until January 2023. The Ombudsman encourages residents to bring complaints to the attention of their landlord within a reasonable time, so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them.  In accordance with the terms of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time of this complaint, this would have been 6 months.
  3. As a result, this investigation is focused on events from mid-2022 onwards, 6 months before the resident first attempted to raise a formal complaint. Any reference to events prior to this are considered for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of the investigation.

Request for a detailed breakdown of service charges

  1. Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) says that a tenant can require its landlord to supply them with a summary of costs relating to the service charge. Section 22 of the Act says that tenants can ask, within a reasonable time, to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents which support the summary.
  2. The resident’s lease also requires the landlord to send him a breakdown of expenditure each year and, on the evidence, it did so. It was a summary and not a detailed account ledger with every payment entered but it had no duty to provide these other than on request. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately.
  3. The resident says that he sent several letters to the landlord which it did not answer, in which he requested information about various matters particularly the details of the service charge. He said in several letters to the landlord that it had failed to respond to these letters. This Service has not seen a full set of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. The correspondence is less complete than would normally be the case as the resident does not use email and so there is some uncertainty as to the date that letters were sent or whether they were received.
  4. For example, in March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his letter saying that it had failed to respond appropriately to his correspondence. It said that it had done so. It said that, on one occasion, he had said he would send the letter to his solicitor, and it had heard no more since. It also stated that he had not sent copy letters to the chief executive when he claimed to have done so. As there is no clear audit trail, it is not possible to say whether the resident did or did not attach these letters.
  5. On the evidence made available to this investigation, the landlord corresponded appropriately with the resident between March 2022 and May 2023 (when it issued its final complaint response). It has provided copies of several letters sent to the resident both during the period of this investigation and prior, which set out its responsibilities and the basis for the charges it had made. The resident wanted more detail but the landlord was not obliged to give it so there is no finding of service failure in that regard.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response of 25 May 2023, the landlord informed the resident of his rights under s.22 of the Act and the evidence shows that he has since made a s.22 request. This demonstrates that the landlord took the opportunity of the formal complaint to inform the resident of the correct process to follow which might satisfactorily address his concerns.
  7. The landlord acted appropriately in providing an estimate of expenditure underlying the charge each year in March and a detailed reconciliation of these accounts with the annual report each year. It provided summaries of the figures both in March and September each year and did so again on request in April 2023. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns and there was no maladministration.
  8. Concerns about charges for the replacement of a warden call system
  1. The resident said, in his initial contact with the Ombudsman, that the landlord had used its ROOSE (replacement of onsite equipment fund) to fund the replacement of the warden call system. It then went on to charge residents for this replacement again in the next 2 years in the charge for those years.
  2. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that this was not the case. It had, instead, closed the ROOSE fund and merged it with the maintenance fund. It provided account statements to show that this was the case. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns and there is no evidence of any maladministration on the landlord’s part.
  3. Communal ground maintenance
  1. The resident has questioned every element of this charge. For example, he has frequently said that the gardening and ground maintenance contractor did not pay a sufficient number of visits to the community to justify its contract fee. The landlord provided a schedule showing that the grounds contractor is contracted to attend about 12 times per year and the resident said, if that is the case, the contractor is paid over £100 per visit. As stated above, this Service cannot comment on the reasonableness of, or justification for, the level of the charges as this would need to be determined by the FTT.
  2. The resident also said that the landlord failed to replace the grounds contractor despite widespread dissatisfaction with its service among residents. However, the landlord has provided evidence that, after expressions of concern from residents in late 2021, it sent out voting slips to residents asking them if they favoured a change of contractor. It says there was insufficient interest in the proposal, so it did not replace the contractor.
  3. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took residents’ concerns seriously, considered appropriate steps to address the issues, and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the information available at the time. On that basis, there is no evidence of any maladministration by the landlord in relation to this part of the complaint.

Maintenance issues

  1. The resident said, in his initial contact with this Service in April 2023, that the landlord maintained the community poorly. He mentioned, in particular, its failure to repair garden pergolas in 2021 and its failure to repair a bin store.
  2. The landlord has provided a copy of a letter sent to residents on 1 November 2021 in which it stated that it intended to remove a pergola because, in its view, it posed a health and safety concern. It asked for input from residents into what should replace it. In the same letter, it asked for input from residents about changes to the bin areas.
  3. The landlord said, in its response to this Service, that it completed works to remove the pergola in early 2022. It also says that, on a visit to the community in early 2023, it noted that the bin store required repair and arranged for the works to be done in March 2023. On the evidence seen, this was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns and there was no maladministration.

Concerns regarding parking arrangements for residents

  1. The community is situated in a built-up area and has a car park which is often used by non-residents. The resident wanted the landlord to provide designated, named parking spaces to residents but the landlord said this was not possible. In a letter of October 2021, it said it had arranged for new car parking signs in prominent locations and asked its car parking provider to monitor the car park more regularly.
  2. Then, in its letter of November 2021, the landlord said it would paint white lines on the spaces and letter each space (at no cost to the residents). It said it hoped that, by doing so, it would discourage outsiders from parking there and it did not believe further signage was necessary.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that, after a recent inspection, it had noticed that one of the car parking signs was broken and it agreed to replace it. This demonstrates that the landlord was taking steps to monitor the situation in the car park and proactively addressed any issues it identified, which was reasonable.
  4. The resident wants the landlord to stop non-residents from using the car park but the landlord has advised that, on its reading of the Land Registry documents, they have a right to do so. As a result, it cannot take any more robust action to prevent non-residents from parking in the car park. While recognising the resident’s strength of feeling about these matters, there is no obligation, or right, for landlord to provide the service he is requesting. As a result, there was no maladministration in its response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. His requests for a detailed breakdown of service charges.
    2. Charges for the replacement of a warden call system.
    3. Communal ground maintenance.
    4. Maintenance issues.
    5. Parking arrangements for residents.