Hyde Housing Association Limited (202109935)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109935

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 June 2023

 

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. the resident’s service charge queries.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 3 December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and submitted a query regarding his service charges. The query was regarding the caretaking costs increase for the period of 2018/2019. There was also a query about how the grounds maintenance costs were calculated and a query regarding the block cost including the communal electricity.
  3. On 3 March 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord via the Ombudsman. The complaint was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about his service charges for 2018/2019.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with a final response letter on 15 April 2021. However, the response did not address his entire complaint and service charge queries. There was no response provided to the resident’s questions about why the caretaking costs had increased in 2018/2019. There was also no response provided about how the grounds maintenance costs were calculated. In addition, there was no response to the resident’s block cost queries.
  5. On 28 July 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and explained that not all the resident’s complaint points had been addressed. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage one response to the outstanding complaint points within ten working days.
  6. The landlord sent three holding letters to the resident on 17 August 2021, 1 September 2021, and 23 September 2023. The letters explained that there was a delay with the landlord issuing its stage one complaint response.
  7. On 30 September 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. The landlord explained that it was upholding the resident’s complaint as it agreed that it should have provided a response to the resident’s email query. The landlord apologised and offered a total of £100 compensation, which included £50 for time and trouble and £50 for the delay. It also provided a response to the resident’s queries regarding the service charge figures, and block services. In addition, it provided a response regarding the caretaking costs for 2019/2020 but no response was provided for the 2018/2019 caretaking costs.
  8. On 4 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one complaint response. He stated that the landlord did not answer his questions concerning 2018/2019 estate costs. The resident also provided the landlord with some additional questions.
  9. On 20 December 2021, the landlord responded to the resident and stated it had decided to decline the resident’s request to escalate the case to stage two of its complaints process. It also stated that it had arranged for a colleague to respond to the resident’s questions. The landlord provided a response to the resident’s questions on 10 December 2021.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated his desired outcome was for the landlord to answer his service charge queries.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries

  1. This report will consider the delays the resident experienced in receiving the final service charge account invoice. It will also consider whether the landlord provided a sufficient response to the resident’s query. Disputes about the level of rent or service charge or level of increase are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Therefore, the Ombudsman will not respond to the resident’s concerns about the increased service charge cost.
  2. The landlord’s service charge policy states service charges are levied by landlords to recover the costs that they incur in providing services to communal areas, blocks and/or estates. It also states where a resident has a complaint or request regarding their service, the landlord’s enquiry procedure should be followed.  Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also sets out the statutory timescales when landlords are expected to respond to service charge enquiries. A landlord is expected to respond within one month of the request or six months of the end of the period to which the query relates, whichever is later.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 December 2019 and submitted a query regarding his 2018/2019 service charges. However, there were significant delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s service charge queries. The landlord partially responded to some of his queries in its stage one response sent on 30 September 2021 and then responded to the remaining outstanding queries on 10 December 2021. Therefore, it took the landlord nearly two years for it to respond to all the resident’s service charge queries which were included in his email dated 3 December 2019. The Ombudsman acknowledges that some of the delays were due to the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the landlord’s service. However, the length of the delay was unreasonable. The landlord should have adequate processes in place to ensure effective communication between teams so it can fulfil its legal obligations to provide information on service charges to leaseholders upon request.
  4. The resident has also expressed that he is unhappy with the landlord’s level of response to two of his queries. The queries were regarding why the level of caretaking costs had increased for the period ending 2018/2019. In addition, the other query was regarding how the landlord had calculated the grounds maintenance costs.
  5. It is evident that there was a delay by the landlord in responding to the resident’s query about the increased caretaking costs for the period ending 2018/2019. The landlord did not provide a response to this element of the query until December 2021. It provided the resident with a summary of the caretaking costs for the period of 2018/2019. The landlord also explained in its response that there was an increase in costs due to staff overtime, agency cover and due to costs associated with covering a vacancy and the subsequent replacement. This was a reasonable response provided by the landlord. However, the resident did query whether some of the pension payments referenced in the summary are correct as he has stated that they did not appear on previous or future service charge summaries for other years.
  6. The Ombudsman has reviewed the caretaking costs summary which was provided by the landlord for the 2018/2019 period. There are regular payments for a pension scheme totalling around £2060.52 per month with a reference named passport 2008, which does not appear on the caretaking costs summary for the 2019/2020 period. Therefore, as this is a clear anomaly, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to confirm with the resident if the pension payments are correct and should be on the service charge bill. The landlord would not be expected to provide specific information which relates to or identifies its employees as this would be confidential.
  7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s query regarding the ground maintenance costs for the 2018/2019 period was not sufficient. The landlord stated in its response to the resident that it apportions the estate costs equally by the number of properties. This was quite a general response. The resident has also confirmed that the landlord provided him with invoices relating to the ground’s maintenance costs. However, he stated the invoices did not reference the area of the estate they relate to. The Ombudsman believes it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a more detailed explanation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide the resident with an explanation of how the grounds maintenance costs are calculated per block/area. It should also explain to the resident which invoices relate to his area of the estate, so it is clear on how the landlord arrived at its calculations.
  8. Given the significant delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s service charge query. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident a further £200 compensation. This is in addition to the £100 compensation that the landlord already offered the resident through its complaints process. The amount of the compensation is appropriate to recognise the delay the resident experienced. It is also compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case there may be no permanent impact to the resident, as the resident eventually received a response from the landlord to his queries.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will provide a stage one complaint response within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage one response should be provided within ten working days of the complaint. It also states if the landlord is unable to meet the ten-working day timeframe, it should provide an explanation and a date for when the stage one response should be received by the resident. It states this should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
  2. The Code also states that a landlord should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a resident’s complaint through all the stages of its complaint procedures. It explains that a landlord must have a clear or valid reason for refusing to escalate the complaint. In addition, The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord via the Ombudsman on 3 March 2021. The landlord provided a final response to the resident on 15 April 2021; however, it did not address all the resident’s complaint elements regarding the service charge query. There was no response provided to the resident’s questions about why the caretaking costs had increased in 2018/2019. There was also no response provided about how the grounds maintenance costs were calculated. Also, there was no response to the resident’s block cost queries. Additionally, when the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 30 September 2021, it also still failed to address all the complaint elements. The landlord did not provide a response regarding the 2018/2019 caretaking cost increase or how the grounds maintenance costs were calculated. As the landlord did not address all the resident’s complaint points, it failed to comply with The Code.
  4. The landlord also provided its stage one complaint response on 30 September 2021, which is approximately 42 working days after the landlord sent its acknowledgement to the outstanding complaint. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord sent the resident letters to inform him of the delay. However, the response time was still significantly delayed and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy and The Code.
  5. The resident requested his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. On 4 December 2021, he emailed the landlord with the reasons why he would like his complaint escalated. He stated that the landlord did not answer his questions concerning the 2018/2019 estate costs. The resident also provided the landlord with some additional questions.
  6. On 20 December 2021, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It explained that it would not be escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaint process. However, it stated it had arranged for its colleague to respond to the resident’s questions. The Ombudsman believes this was unreasonable. The resident provided valid reasons for his complaint to be escalated. Therefore, this Service would have expected the landlord to consider the points raised by the resident and issue a stage two complaint response in this instance.
  7. The landlord failed to initially address all the resident’s complaint points and declined to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two. Also, there was a delay in the landlord providing its stage one complaint response. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It is also compliant with the Remedies Guidance referenced above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for its response to the resident’s service charge queries. This amount is in addition to the £100 compensation already offered to the resident through the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling.
  3. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report.
  4. The landlord to provide a covering letter to the resident, confirming whether the pension payments on the caretaking costs summary are correct. The landlord is also to provide the resident with an explanation of how the grounds maintenance costs are calculated per block/area. It should also explain to the resident which invoices relate to his area of the estate.
  5. The landlord should contact this Service within six weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaints policy to ensure that its complaint response timescales are compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.