Hyde Housing Association Limited (202128560)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128560

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 March 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint about service charge administration.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 28 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about the service charge deficit on their account. The resident asked how management costs had doubled over the previous months.
  3. On 20 January 2021, the resident called the landlord for an update, as they had not had a response to their service charge query. On 2 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that they would receive a follow up call with a full update. On 5 February 2021, the resident called the landlord back and explained that they had not had the update. The landlord explained that the complaints team had ten working days to respond according to their complaint timescales.
  4. On 15 February 2021 the resident called the landlord to make a stage one complaint because they had not had an answer to the service charge query from October 2020. The landlord explained it had a backlog of over a thousand cases, and that it would ask the complaint case owner to contact the resident.
  5. On 8 March 2021 the resident called the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage two as they had received no contact since the last call. On 11 March 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident in writing that it had identified errors in the resident’s latest service charge statement, which meant all residents had been overcharged. However, it appears that the resident did not receive this letter, and they called the landlord again for an update on 16 March 2021, and 31 March 2021.
  6. On 12 April 2021, the resident called the landlord again for an update. On 22 April 2021, the landlord sent a follow up letter to the resident confirming the overcharge would be credited back to them. On 26 April 2021, the resident called the landlord and said they had received a letter around 20 April, but it was dated 11 March 2021.
  7. The resident called the landlord for an update on the complaint at least five times over the next six months. On 26 November 2021, the landlord sent out its stage one response letter. It apologised for the level of service it had provided, and recognised that there had been a delay and failure to respond to the resident’s queries. It also offered the resident £100 in compensation (£75 for the delays and £25 for time and trouble). Additionally, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been overcharged in error, and that the overcharge had been credited back as per its letter on 22 April 2021. The landlord explained that if the resident was still having problems with the service charge they would need to contact it’s service charge team.
  8. On 10 December 2021, the resident responded and declined the £100 compensation offered by the landlord. They explained that they thought their complaint should be at stage two as they had been told this was the case by a member of the complaints team during their previous call. After no further update, the resident chased a response several times.
  9. On 28 February 2022 the landlord replied to the resident by email, apologising for the delayed response. It explained that the complaint case worker had been on annual leave and then sick leave.
  10. Finally, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had declined the offer of compensation, and explained the complaint was currently on hold. It asked the resident to get back in touch with it about the complaint at their earliest convenience. The resident responded on the same day requesting a final response so they could bring the complaint to this Service.
  11. On 9 March 2022 the landlord sent the resident a letter explaining that it would not be changing its decision on the complaint, or escalating it to stage two. It explained that this was because it had dealt with the complaint in line with its policy. The letter said that if the resident had new questions about service charges, they could contact the customer service charge team. The landlord explained that the resident could contact it by phone if they had any questions about its reply or what to do next.
  12. On 30 March 2022, the resident brought their complaint to this Service, as they did not think the landlord had dealt with their complaint properly or within the appropriate timescales. They also did not think the compensation offered reflected the service problems they had experienced.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Stage One complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy sets out how the landlord will handle any complaints from residents. The policy states that at stage one, a complaints officer will provide a formal acknowledgment to the customer within two working days.
  2. The policy sets out that the landlord would aim to respond to stage one formal complaints within ten working days of receipt of the complaint. It also says that where it is not possible to provide a response within this timescale, it will explain this to the customer and give a date for their response. This will be no later than a further ten days.
  3. The landlord has recorded that the resident made a request for a stage one complaint on 15 February 2021. According to the landlord’s own timeline, the resident received no acknowledgment within two working days of their complaint. This led to the resident contacting the landlord on 8 March 2021, requesting to escalate their complaint to stage two. This does not appear to have been acknowledged by the landlord. The landlord failed to follow its complaint policy here.
  4. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of a letter from 11 March 2021 sent to all residents confirming it had identified errors in its last service charge statement. The resident called the landlord to chase an update on 16 March and 31 March 2021, which indicated that may not have received a copy. At no point does it appear that the landlord explained that it had sent a letter or advised the resident what the letter had said. A copy of the letter was not offered to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to resolve matters earlier, and improve the landlord/resident relationship.
  5. A letter was sent to the resident on 22 April 2021 to advise that there was an overcharge that would be credited back to them (some six months after the resident’s initial query), however, no formal complaint response was provided. This meant the resident spent more time and trouble chasing this up over the following months. The stage one response was not provided until November 2021, some nine months after the resident’s initial complaint. This was a significant failing, causing frustration to the resident.
  6. The landlord’s stage one response offered an apology to the resident for the delays in responding to their complaint. It also acknowledged that it could have provided the resident with a better level of service and provided a resolution quicker. The landlord offered £75 in recognition for the delay, and £25 for the resident’s time and trouble. It explained this amount was in line with its compensation policy. Additionally, the landlord explained how it was working on improving its service charge process.
  7. While it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the failings and offered compensation and information on improving its service charge process, it did not detail what action it would take in relation to the complaint handling failures, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
  8. The letter advised the resident they could contact this Service at any point for guidance, and provided a link to our website. But it was not made clear to the resident that they could escalate a complaint to this Service. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code).

Rejection of stage two complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states that if a customer is not satisfied with the response at stage one, they could ask for their complaint to be reviewed by a senior manager at stage two of the process. It states that in most cases the landlord will agree to look again at its decision and consider any additional information provided. However, the policy also states the landlord will not agree to escalate a complaint to stage two where it has upheld the complaint but the resident requested an increase in any compensation being offered. The policy explains this will be dealt with within the stage one resolution discussion.
  2. In its 28 February 2022 response, the landlord explained its complaint process. It also acknowledged the resident had declined the offer of compensation, and explained the complaint was currently on hold. It asked the resident to get back in touch with it about the complaint at their earliest convenience. It is unclear why the complaint was put on hold, given that the resident had made it clear they did not accept the stage one response. The onus was unfairly put on the resident to contact the landlord again, but the purpose for this was not made clear to the resident. This delayed the resident bringing their complaint to this Service.
  3. The landlord subsequently sent a letter to the resident on 9 March 2022 rejecting their request for a stage two complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy, given the reason for the escalation was an increase in compensation. However, the Code states that where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should also make it clear that this was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  4. In addition, the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will let customers know about their rights to access this Service, including for advice and guidance, at the outset and throughout the handling of the complaint. When complaint responses are provided, the landlord will routinely signpost the resident to this Service.
  5. In its letter to the resident on 9 March 2022, the landlord rejected the request for a stage two complaint as it felt it had dealt with the complaint issues and tried to resolve them in line with its policies. No referral rights were given to the Ombudsman, and it was not made clear that it was the landlord’s final response. The letter also stated that if the resident had new questions about service charges, they could contact the customer service charge team. It then stated that the resident could contact them by phone if they had any questions about their reply or what to do next.
  6. Additionally, the onus was again put on the resident to contact the landlord for next steps. This is not a fair response given the amount of time the resident had already spent contacting the landlord for responses. This meant that the resident suffered additional stress and inconvenience by having to contact the landlord for clarity on the situation. It further delayed them bringing a complaint to this Service.
  7. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. As previously noted, the landlord acknowledged these and offered the resident £100 in compensation for the delay in handling the complaint, and for the resident’s time and trouble. When calculating compensation, this Service takes into account many different factors, including the cumulative impact on the resident where there have been multiple service failures by a landlord.
  8. Our Service considers £100 to be a fair amount to recognise a minimal service failing of a short duration. However, in this case there were a series of failings in the handling of the resident’s complaint and these continued for a long time. This meant that it took an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to get an answer from the landlord on their initial query about incorrect service charges. As a result, the resident had to spend a lot of time chasing responses to their concerns, which was understandably frustrating and stressful for them.
  9. For these reasons, and while the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, the offer of compensation was not proportionate to recognise the number of repeated failings identified in this investigation, or the time the resident spent trying to get the matter resolved. Further, the landlord did not explain to the resident how it would learn from the outcomes of the complaint, or how it would prevent a recurrence of the failings. There is no indication that the landlord has taken action to ‘learn from outcomes’ here. As such, a finding of ‘service failure’ is made (rather than the more serious finding of maladministration, given the attempts to ‘put things right’)
  10. In cases where there have been failings, the landlord has acknowledged these and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings, the Ombudsman remedies guidance suggests amounts of £100 and above. In light of this, an order for increased compensation is made below.

Determination (decision)

  1. As per paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about service charges.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £250 (if the £100 previously offered has already been paid, this can be deducted from this amount).
    1. Carry out a review of the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint  Handling Code, to determine the reasons for the failings, and what actions have/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman.