Citizen Housing Group Limited (202409664)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property as a shared owner since 2016. The property is a flat in a block of 6 and shares some facilities with another block of 6 flats.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the way the landlord dealt with:
   1. Questions about the calculation and apportionment of service charges.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress by the landlord in the way it dealt with questions about the calculation and apportionment of service charges.
   2. Maladministration by the landlord in the way it dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

Service charges

4. In its final response the landlord apologised for its failures, corrected the resident’s account, offered a reasonable amount of compensation, and said what it would do next. When there was a further delay, it increased the offer of compensation by a reasonable amount.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not raise a complaint following an expression of dissatisfaction by the resident in October 2022. It did not recognise this failure in its final response.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us she wanted an investigation into the accuracy and fairness of the service charges. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate parts of a complaint.
7. After considering the evidence, we will not investigate the accuracy and fairness of the service charges. This is because the Ombudsman’s Scheme says we may not consider complaints about the level (or amount of increase) of service charges. The resident may wish to refer this part of her complaint to the FTT (Property Chamber), which considers service charge disputes.

What we investigated

8. The landlord says it sets a budget at the start of each financial year, which is an estimate of the costs of its services. At the end of the financial year, it reviews the actual costs and sends residents a statement. Any underpayment is charged to the resident’s account, and any overpayment is credited.
9. In its final response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said she had emailed on 20 September 2022 and asked questions about the charges. The landlord replied on 28 September 2022 and gave information about some service charges. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s original enquiry, and because of this we cannot comment on whether the landlord answered the questions in a reasonable way.
10. On 31 October 2022 the resident said she had asked for proof of why the charges increased. She said the landlord had not given evidence and its response was not satisfactory.
11. The landlord responded on 1 November 2022 and apologised for not answering the resident’s questions to her satisfaction. It said it would get the information as soon as possible. We have found it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise. However, it did not say when it would respond, which was unreasonable. The landlord accepted the resident’s dissatisfaction but did not raise a complaint. We have dealt with this in the section below on the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
12. We have seen no further communications until 9 March 2023 when the landlord sent a complaint response. In its response, the landlord said it had not shared the cost of repairs to the car park barrier between the 12 flats that used the car park. It said it had corrected the error and credited the resident’s account. It said it had also made an error on the communal cleaning charge and had made a credit for this. It said the errors meant the admin charge had also reduced. It apologised for the errors and offered £75 compensation because of the time taken to answer the resident’s questions.
13. Although we cannot comment on the fairness and accuracy of the charges, it is our view that it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for errors, credit the account, and offer compensation. However, it took the landlord 6 months to provide information and amend the account. Because of this, it is our view that the compensation at this time was insufficient as it did not reflect the inconvenience caused.
14. Records provided by the landlord show no contact from the resident until 31 January 2024, when she escalated her complaint. The resident said the landlord had not given satisfactory answers. She said between September and December 2022 she had asked for invoices, but the landlord only sent spreadsheets, which were not proof. The resident wanted answers to all her questions. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication, and it had charged her incorrectly since 2016.
15. In its final response on 15 March 2024, the landlord accepted there were communication failures, and it had not fully answered some questions. It also agreed the time taken to respond was unacceptable. It apologised and offered £180 compensation for time and trouble.
16. The response gave information about various charges. We cannot comment on the accuracy of this but have seen the landlord explained how it raised orders with its contractors and how they sent “bulk invoices”. It said it gave residents details of costs through a spreadsheet, as it provided a record the bulk invoices would not. It said it would provide invoices when available and when they were exclusively for one estate or building. It is our view that this was a reasonable explanation.
17. The landlord said it would look at the resident’s outstanding questions, review her account, and review service charges for the 2 blocks. It apologised that it could not say what refunds were due but said it aimed to do this by 31 March 2024.
18. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 May 2024 and told her it had reviewed charges back to 2021 and credited her account because of errors. Following further contact from the resident on 9 June 2024, the landlord apologised on 17 June 2024 that it had not completed all actions promised in its final response. On 21 August 2024 the landlord said it was able to respond to the resident’s questions. It said it would make a further refund and increased the offer of compensation to £230.
19. The response set out details of how the landlord had calculated the refund. It said the resident had asked it to review charges since 2016. It said as there was no record of a complaint until September 2022, in line with its complaints policy it had only looked at charges from 2021 to 2022. It said its final response was transparent, but as it had made another refund, this showed some failure, and this was why it was increasing the compensation. It said the final response was in March 2024, and as it was now August 2024, it had increased the compensation by £10 a month.
20. The landlord told the resident that she could dispute service charges through the FTT and suggested she seek independent advice. It said the Leasehold Advisory Service provided guidance, but the Ombudsman would not consider the level of service charges.
21. Overall, we have found the landlord’s final response was reasonable. This is because it apologised for its failures, made corrections to the resident’s account, offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the delays, and set out what it would do next. It also explained what information it could provide and why it would not look at service charges going back to 2016. When there was another delay, it increased the compensation, which was appropriate.
22. In October 2025 we asked the landlord to clarify the compensation it had offered during the complaints process. It said it was unclear from its final response whether the £240 compensation was in addition to the £75 offered at stage 1. It said because of this, the total amount offered was £305.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy says a complaint is any expression of dissatisfaction. It says it is unlikely to accept a complaint about an event that happened more than 12 months ago. On responses, it says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
24. The resident asked questions about service charges on 20 September 2022. The landlord dealt with this as a service request, which was reasonable, and responded on 28 September 2022. However, on 31 October 2022 the resident said the landlord’s response was not satisfactory. It is our view that this was an expression of dissatisfaction, and the landlord should have raised a complaint.
25. On 9 March 2023 the landlord sent a complaint response. It said while the resident had not raised a complaint, “the significance of queries warranted a response” under its complaints policy. We have not seen evidence of queries between 31 October 2022 and 9 March 2023, and because of this it is unclear why the landlord decided to raise a complaint at this time.
26. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 February 2024 and sent a final response on 15 March 2024. This was 30 working days after it acknowledged the complaint and was a failure to meet the timescales in its policy. In mitigation, the landlord told the resident on 29 February 2024 that there would be a delay.
27. Although the landlord accepted there had been a delay in providing a response to the resident’s questions in its complaint responses, and offered reasonable compensation for this, it did not apologise for the failure to follow its complaints policy.
28. Overall, we have found failings in the way the landlord dealt with the complaint. Most significantly, it did not raise a complaint in October 2022 when the resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction. It also delayed in responding at stage 2 and offered no specific redress for this. Because of this, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord. The resident explained that the time spent waiting for answers affected her wellbeing. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for its failures.