Hightown Housing Association Limited (202333808)

Decision
Case ID	202333808
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hightown Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a flat with a private entrance. Her utility meters are located in a communal hallway. She is liable for the associated maintenance costs through her service charge, which she said was unfair. She also raised concerns about the landlord influencing property valuations around 2017 and 2018. During the complaints procedure, the landlord identified that costs for communal car parking had not been calculated correctly between properties. The landlord has committed to correcting this error.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Service charges.
2. Concerns about property valuations.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s service charge.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about property valuations is outside of jurisdiction.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Property valuations

The resident has told us that she had concerns that the landlord unfairly influenced valuations of her property between 2017 and 2018. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints that are referred to us normally more than 12 months from the date of the landlord’s final response. In this case, the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure about this in November 2018. However, she did not refer the complaint to us until after 12 months in December 2023. We have not seen any reasons which prevented the complaint from being referred to us sooner. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaint about the resident’s concerns that the landlord unfairly influenced property valuations.

Service charges

The landlord appropriately explained the basis for the resident’s service charge liability, confirmed the utility meters could not be moved, and arranged a replacement key fob during its complaints procedure. It also addressed her concerns about access and repairs to the communal door. The landlord identified an error in the communal car park service charges and committed to resolving it, which was positive and showed transparency. It also informed the resident she could challenge the reasonableness of her charges through the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The landlord offered £100 during its complaints procedure, which was sufficient to put things right.

Complaint handling

While the landlord delayed escalating the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure, this did not significantly affect its handling of the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the £100 it awarded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this award has been or will be paid.
We recommend that the landlord provide the resident with a detailed written outcome confirming the action it has taken to resolve the miscalculation in the service charge for electricity costs for communal car parking, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 December 2023	The resident complained about contributing to costs for a communal hallway through her service charge. She said the hallway housed her utility meters, but she did not need to access the hallway. She also disputed the recovery of repair costs for damage to the communal door through the service charge. Additionally, she said the landlord had unfairly influenced previous valuations of her property.
11 January 2024	The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said: the resident was liable for communal hallway costs because her utility meters were located there. It offered to provide a replacement key fob if needed. It advised that if she disagreed with the service charge amount, she could contact the First-tier Tribunal. it reviewed the previous year’s service charge accounts and found no costs for communal door repairs. It explained that concerns about earlier financial periods or issues raised when she first moved in were outside its complaints policy due to the time that had passed. as concerns about its influence on property valuations had exhausted its complaints procedure in November 2018, it could not comment on the matter again.
16 January 2024	The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said it was unfair that her utility meters were located in the communal hallway when other residents’ meters were not. She also said she did not have access to the hallway and asked the landlord to confirm when a key fob should have been provided.
19 January 2024	The landlord said the resident needed access to the communal hallway for her utility meters and confirmed it would arrange a replacement key fob. It said that after reviewing its service charge accounts, it had identified a miscalculation in the charge for communal car park lighting because costs had not been apportioned correctly between properties. It said it would resolve this in future service charge budgets. It offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture for the time and trouble she likely experienced in raising the complaint. It advised that if she remained dissatisfied, it would escalate the complaint to the final stage of its procedure. The resident asked for escalation because she remained dissatisfied with the fairness of her service charge.
8 February 2024	The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said: the resident’s utility meters were located in the communal hallway as part of the original building design and could not be moved. It said she would have been made aware of the associated service charges when she purchased the property. It confirmed that a replacement key fob had been arranged and that access was also available through a trade button. it could not refund previous years’ service charges for communal car park lighting because the accounts had been audited and closed. However, it reiterated that it would explore how best to resolve the issue in the 2024/25 service charge budget. she could contact the First-tier Tribunal to challenge the reasonableness of her service charges. it would award £100 for the inconvenience caused in having to raise the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she did not feel her service charges were fair and raised concerns about the landlord influencing property valuations. She asked us to investigate these issues.

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.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s service charges
Finding	Reasonable redress

Under the leasehold agreement, the resident is responsible for paying a service charge. This includes costs for maintaining communal areas, including the hallway where her utility meters are located. The landlord explained this liability in its complaint responses and clarified that the amount differed from neighbours because their meters were not in a communal hallway. It was not obliged to relocate the meters and explained in its stage 2 response that they were part of the original building design when the property was purchased. The landlord’s responses aligned with our expectations for effective communication, which is essential for transparency and accountability.
As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident also raised concerns about the costs of repairing the communal hallway door being claimed through the service charge. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that this did not occur in the 12 months leading to her complaint. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. However, there is no evidence that she raised a complaint promptly and, in any event, within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the associated costs of repairing the communal door.
On 16 January 2024, the resident told the landlord she had not received a key fob for the communal hallway. The landlord arranged for one to be provided free of charge and confirmed that the resident could also access the area using a trade button. There is no evidence that the landlord was previously aware that the resident did not have a key fob, so it was not a failure that this was not resolved sooner.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that it had identified a miscalculation in the apportionment of electricity costs for communal car parking. It explained that more properties should have contributed to these charges and said it would address this in future service charge budgets. This shows the landlord did not maintain adequate oversight of its service charge calculations, which may have added to the resident’s concerns about her service charge liability. The landlord agreed to resolve this in future service charge budgets. We have recommended that it provide the resident with a detailed written outcome confirming how this was resolved if it has not already done so.
The resident told the landlord and us that she did not consider the level of service charge she was liable for to be fair. She also requested a refund for the miscalculated amount. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it could not provide a refund because the service charge accounts for those periods had already been audited and closed. It included details about the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), advising the resident that she could challenge the reasonableness of her service charges through that route if she wished. This was reasonable, and we welcome this level of transparency from the landlord in making the resident aware of the options available to her.
In line with our Scheme, we do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge. Therefore, it is outside our remit to comment on whether the service charge was reasonable or if the resident is entitled to an associated refund. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better suited to consider such matters, given its powers and expertise. The resident may also wish to seek independent advice, such as from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE), which provides free expert advice to leaseholders regarding service charges.
The landlord awarded the resident £100 during its complaints procedure for the inconvenience caused by raising the service charge issues. This award aligns with our remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance says that compensation of up to £100 may be appropriate where a resident experiences distress or inconvenience due to minor failures by the landlord. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress. We have recommended that the landlord pay this award if it has not already done so.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices are set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which landlords who are members of our Scheme must follow. In line with the Code, the landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. It did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaints as required under the Code. However, this did not significantly affect its handling of the complaints. It issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the Code’s timescales of 10 and 20 working days.
Under the Code, landlords must not create unnecessary barriers to residents progressing through their complaints procedure. The landlord delayed escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 16 January 2024, despite her specific request. However, this likely caused only minor inconvenience, as the complaint was escalated on 19 January 2024 and did not significantly affect the overall handling of her complaint.
Based on these findings, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

.Learning

Complaint handling

The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure when it should have. It may wish to review the training provided to staff to ensure that complaint escalations are accepted without unnecessary delay, in line with the expectations of the Code.

Communication

Effective communication is essential for accountability, transparency, and managing expectations. The landlord included details of the First-tier Tribunal in both complaint responses, ensuring the resident was aware of available routes to challenge the reasonableness of her service charges. It also acted transparently by informing the resident of errors it had identified in its calculation of communal car parking charges and confirming that it intended to address these in future service charge budgets, even though this was not specifically raised as part of her complaint.