Clarion Housing Association Limited (202334258)

Background

1. The resident pays the landlord a variable service charge. When the landlord issued the finalised service charge for the period 2022 to 2023, the resident raised 2 queries. The landlord failed to respond, which gave rise to the resident’s complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Requests for information about the service charge.
   2. Concerns about the accuracy of the actual service charge.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response for information about the service charge.
   2. There was reasonable redress in landlord’s response about the accuracy of the actual service charge.
   3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Requests for information about the service charge

4. The landlord took too long to reply to the resident’s queries about their service charge. The landlord offered compensation for its failing, but it was not in line with its compensation policy.

Concerns about the accuracy of the actual service charge

5. There resident’s actual service charge for year ending March 2023 contained errors. The landlord acknowledged the mistakes and credited the resident’s service charge account. It also apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy, which we thought was appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

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.

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.

7. On 22 September 2023 the landlord provided the resident with his finalised service charge statement for the year ending March 2023. In response, the resident raised 2 queries:
   1. On 25 September 2023 he queried the rate of interest on the sinking fund.
   2. On 26 September 2023 he requested a breakdown of the service charges and a copy of the invoices.
8. The resident said he chased the queries several times. This is confirmed in the landlord’s communication with him. On 27 October 2023 he complained to the landlord he was still waiting for a response.
9. The resident’s lease states he must contribute towards the landlord’s costs through the service charge. This charge broadly covers the costs associated with management, and communal maintenance and repairs.
10. Both the lease and legislation covering service charges gives leaseholders the right to ask their landlord to supply a summary of the relevant costs, which make up their service charges for the last accounting period.
11. Leaseholders have the right to inspect any receipts or invoices which support the landlord’s service charge figures. The request must be made within 6 months or receiving the summary, in writing. The landlord must provide facilities for inspecting the information within 1 month of the request.
12. At the time of the resident making his complaint, the landlord had failed to respond to his request within the statutory timeframes.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response answered both of the resident’s earlier queries, and provided the relevant service charge information, however, this was more than 2 months after they were first raised. It set out the interest rate for the sinking fund with an explanation as to how it was calculated. The landlord did not provide a reason other than it was dealing with a high demand for information as to why a simple request such as this could not be answered sooner.
14. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. Its compensation policy sets out the circumstances under which it may consider making an offer of compensation. It states in instances where there had been considerable failure but no permanent impact on a resident, the landlord may offer between £250 and £700. Examples of this failing include a resident repeatedly having to chase the landlord for responses and to correct mistakes, which results in an unreasonable level of involvement by that resident. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s complaint fits the criteria of considerable failure with no permanent impact, and as such, the landlord’s offer of compensation was lower than what its policy allowed for.
15. In his escalation request, the resident said he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response as it continued to make the same failings each year. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed it thought its findings at stage 1 were fair and did not offer further compensation.
16. In summary the evidence shows the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the repeated delays he experienced each year in relation to the provision of information about his service charges. The landlord did recognise there had been delays in responding to the resident’s most recent queries and apologised. It provided the information requested and offered compensation to put things right.
17. However, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was disproportionately low when considering its compensation policy. Its offer failed to fully acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident and the level of involvement by him in order to get an answer to his queries. The landlord also missed an opportunity to reassure the resident and set out what steps it planned to take to prevent the same situation happening again.
18. The combination of these failings leads to a finding of service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about his service charge. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £300 compensation to the resident in line with its compensation policy.
19. We have noted the landlord wrote to the resident in March and April 2025, at our request, and explained the proactive steps it had since taken to reduce the number of queries received and the time taken to resolve them. For this reason, we have not made an order for the landlord to review its processes for dealing with service charge queries.

What we did not investigate

20. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge. As the resident’s complaint involves how the landlord has accounted for the charges made to the resident, the complaint is ultimately about the level of service charge and so we will not investigate it. The First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber) or court are more likely to be best placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise.

What we did investigate

21. Part of the resident’s complaint was how the landlord’s communicated with the resident about the service charge breakdown. We have assessed as part of this investigation whether the landlord’s communication was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
22. The landlord provided the resident with a service charge breakdown and a copy of invoices with its stage 2 response. When the resident escalated his complaint, he raised several queries regarding the accuracy of the service charges after thoroughly examining the information provided.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided a list of responses to the resident’s service charge queries.
24. The evidence shows the landlord provided comprehensive responses to each query and demonstrated it had reviewed the service charges for the financial year ending March 2023. The landlord explained it had identified some errors, which it committed to putting right by reducing the service charge.
25. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation. Its compensation policy states in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, the landlord may offer between £50 and £250. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses, but where the failure had no significant impact. The landlord’s offer was in line with its policy.
26. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
27. The apologies made by the landlord, its review of the resident’s service charge account and the offer of compensation was reflective of the impact to the resident and proportionate to its failings. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of the actual service charge. This means its offer of redress satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

28. The landlord operated an interim two-stage complaint process during the time of this complaint. This was due to its efforts to manage it service provision following a cyber-security attack. It committed to acknowledge complaints within 10 working days at both stages and issue responses after 20 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2. These timescales differed from those set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation request in line with its policy. It also provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy. Despite this, the landlord still awarded the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling.
30. The landlord complied with its interim policy in the handling of this complaint. Given it was responding to an interruption in its ability to provide a normal service, this was reasonable in the circumstances. The apologies made and the offer of compensation leads to a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
31. Since the complaint was made, the landlord has subsequently changed its complaint policy to re-align with the provisions of the Code.

Learning

32. During his complaint, and in conversation with us, the resident raised concerns about the repeated inaccuracies in the landlord’s statement of actual expenditure, across several years.
33. It is noted from the previous complaints determined by us, that the resident also complained about inaccurate service charges for the financial years ending March 2021 (case 202127738 refers) and March 2022 (case 202306996 refers).
34. The landlord has taken learning from the recurring issues that the resident has complained about. It has since implemented proactive measures to reduce the number of errors made when calculating the actual service charge and the number of queries received.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

36. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.