Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202106617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106617

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

29 March 2022

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:

a. response to the resident’s concerns about a service charge for alarm monitoring.

b. alteration of the terms of the tenancy agreement by transferring the contract for the alarm service to a third party.

c. complaint handling. 

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are some reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
4. The resident has expressed concern regarding paying charges for the alarm system directly to the service provider as advised by the landlord. The resident also raised concerns regarding the landlord altering the terms of the tenancy agreement by transferring the contract for the alarm service to a third party. Such disputes about service charges, and altering the terms of the tenancy agreement, would be more appropriately considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The tribunal can investigate and make binding findings about disputes of this nature.
5. In line with paragraph 39(i), this investigation will not look at: the charge relating to alarm monitoring or the landlord’s advice to pay the third party directly. This Service also will not look at the landlord’s decision to transfer the contract for the alarm service to a third party. We can, however, look at its communication about the transfer and whether it explained its position clearly to the resident. Any references to the service charge dispute or alteration of the terms of the tenancy agreement in this report are for context only.

Background

6. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the property is a flat within a block of flats.
7. In September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he was having difficulties with one of its service providers, which advised that he owed it money. He disputed this, stating that his rent account was up to date. He asked that the landlord show the clause in his tenancy agreement that said he should pay the service provider directly.
8. The resident asked to raise a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 October 2020. He confirmed that he had received a copy of the tenancy agreement, but it did not highlight the clause stating that he had to pay the service provider directly. The resident said that there was a charge for “support charges” which he believed was the money the landlord should have sent to the service provider. He said he did not believe he needed to contact the new service provider because he never signed up for services from it. He further said that the landlord was “engineering a debt against [him] where in reality [his] record was clear”.
9. On 22 April 2021, this Service emailed the landlord and passed on the resident’s complaint. In response, the landlord confirmed that when the resident signed his tenancy agreement in 2014, a charge for the personal alarm monitoring was included. It advised that the service had since been transferred to a different service provider in 2018, and that the alarm-monitoring charge was removed from his rent account. The landlord advised that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint because a payment was due to be paid directly to the new service provider since 2018. It advised the resident to contact the service provider directly to resolve the matter.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 May 2021 explaining that when he signed his tenancy agreement the alarm-monitoring service was paid for from his rent money sent directly to the landlord. He said he was not a customer of the service provider and had never bought a service from them. He said the landlord could not “shed part of its responsibilities because it no longer [suited it].” He believed that the landlord was obliged to pay the service provider. The resident asked the landlord to review its complaints procedure (escalate his complaint).
11. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 24 June 2021 and reiterated similar points to that of its first complaint response. It provided contact details for the service provider and again advised the resident to contact the service provider to make a direct payment.
12. The resident brought his complaint to this Service in July 2021. He explained that he refused to pay the service provider because he did not sign up for it and he believed it was the landlord’s responsibility to pay the service provider instead. The resident explained that the landlord would not accept his enquiries about the alarm-monitoring service, and the service provider would not communicate with him. 

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

13. The resident’s tenancy agreement, dated 2014, includes a list of service charges including the alarm-monitoring service charge.
14. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a three-stage complaint procedure. It advises that a first contact resolution would be identified and offered to the resident within three days. It states that a formal investigation and written response would be provided within 28 days and that a review of the complaint resolution would be provided within 21 days.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy says the landlord aims to ensure that residents are aware of their rights to claim compensation and the circumstances in which claims will be considered.
16. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord advised him to contact the service provider directly as it said it did not have details of the fees he was expected to pay or the balance of his account. It is understandable that the landlord may not have been able to answer all the resident’s questions as it did not hold this information. However, the resident had advised that the service provider was refusing to communicate with him and following this, the landlord should have communicated with the service provider on the resident’s behalf to ask it to respond to his concerns.
17. Although it had sent previous letters in 2018, notifying the resident about the change, the landlord’s complaint responses lacked clarity and did not explain its position as it did not explain how it had followed the correct process to have the alarm service transferred to a third party, or why it was appropriate for the resident to pay the third party directly. The landlord should have also explained the process it followed for changing his tenancy agreement to remove the  alarm fee which had previously formed part of the service charge. As the landlord failed to fully address the resident’s concerns or pass the resident’s concerns to the new service provider, this constitutes a failing by the landlord.
18. The landlord has confirmed that the resident is unable to opt out of the alarm service and he would be in breach of his tenancy agreement if he does not pay for this service. It was unfair for the landlord to suggest that it has no involvement with the alarm charge whilst simultaneously saying that the resident would be in breach of tenancy if he fails to pay this charge.
19. The landlord should explain its position to the resident now in order to fully address his complaint. As this matter concerns the interpretation of the tenancy agreement and the processes which the landlord should follow when making changes to the tenancy agreement, the landlord should seek legal advice before responding to the resident to ensure it is giving him the correct information and that it is acting in line with its legal obligations with regards to the provision of the alarm service.
20.  The landlord should also offer compensation as detailed below for any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of its errors. As the landlord’s compensation policy at the time of the resident’s complaint does not give detailed guidance regarding how it calculates compensation for distress and inconvenience, the Ombudsman has assessed the level of compensation which should be paid in this case using our own remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation in the range of the range of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure or maladministration by the landlord resulting in some impact on the resident, but where the service failure was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. In this case the landlord failed to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, and failed to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint. Compensation of £250 is due in view of this. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since improved its compensation policy in line with our service’s guidance.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about a service charge for alarm monitoring.
22. There was also maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

23. This Service orders the landlord to:

a. Pay the resident £250 in compensation for not fully addressing his complaint and not passing on his concerns to the alarm provider.

This compensation should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report.

b. Within four weeks of today’s date, the landlord should contact the third-party service provider and pass on the resident’s concerns, and to let the resident and this Service know when it has done so.

c. Seek legal advice regarding the correct process for transferring the alarm provision to a third party, which residents would need to pay directly for the service rather than paying the landlord as part of their service charge. Once the landlord has sought legal advice, it should explain its position to the resident and the Ombudsman. This should be within eight weeks of the date of this decision.