Hyde Housing Association Limited (202343265)

Background

1. The resident has said he had been raising concerns about the way the landlord calculated the electricity service charge since 2021. He made a complaint due to the landlord’s delays to provide an annual service charge statement for 2022 to 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. Its communication about service charges.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in how the landlord handled its communication about service charges.
4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not communicate adequately with the resident for an extended period of time. It did not follow through on the commitments made in its stage 1 response. However, it later began to provide more regular updates and took steps to put things right.
6. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response within a reasonable time. It should not have extended the process in order to address the resident’s concerns around the service charge. However, it acknowledged its failings and took steps to put things right.

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.

7. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised his concerns before he made the stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will only treat service charge enquiries as a complaint when there is evidence of service failure. The absence of earlier records means we cannot assess how the landlord communicated with the resident before stage 1. The gaps in the evidence raise concerns about the landlord’s record‑keeping.
8. In its stage 1 response of 16 November 2023 the landlord committed to updating the resident in 2 weeks. There is no evidence the landlord provided this update. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have met the commitments made in its complaint response.
9. The landlord issued a letter to all residents on 19 December 2023. The resident told the landlord on 19 February 2024 that he had not received it. The evidence shows he was still requesting a copy on 26 March 2024. Given the ongoing complaint and the landlord’s commitment to keep the resident updated, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have checked he had received the letter. It should have provided a copy when he notified it that he had not. The landlord did not act reasonably here.
10. After the stage 2 complaint, the resident continued to request updates until he spoke to a senior member of staff on 27 March 2024. This meant he waited more than 4 months for an update. This was not a reasonable level of communication from the landlord.
11. The landlord’s service charge enquiry policy says it will keep residents informed about the progress of their enquiry. After acknowledging the stage 2 escalation on 18 April 2024, the landlord provided updates every 2 to 3 weeks until 3 June 2024. While the updates could have been more detailed, this was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. The impact on the resident was low as the landlord had suspended electricity charges during this period. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy at this stage.
12. The landlord then took more than a month to provide a further update, on 8 July 2024. The landlord should have communicated with the resident if it expected a delay. Not providing an update or a timescale for more than a month was not reasonable.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 July 2024. It provided a meaningful update and told him what the next steps were. This was an appropriate action.
14. The landlord communicated its findings to the resident on 12 August 2024. Its service charge enquiry policy says findings will be communicated clearly and supported by evidence where appropriate. The evidence shows the landlord did this, meeting the requirements of its policy. It also responded to the resident’s further queries. This was an appropriate response, particularly given the length of the investigation.
15. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised and acknowledged that its communication since the stage 1 complaint had not been appropriate. It offered the resident £700 for this element of the complaint. If the landlord had not taken these steps, we may have found maladministration.
16. Our remedies guidance says for maladministration with no permanent impact on a resident, the award should be between £100 to £600. While the resident did experience distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s actions, there was no permanent impact on him. The offer of compensation was proportionate to the issues we identified. We therefore find reasonable redress in the way the landlord handled its communication around service charges.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 10 working days and issued its response within 2 working days. Although the acknowledgement did not meet the timescale, the response was provided within the required timeframe.
19. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 19 February 2024. The landlord took 42 working days to acknowledge the escalation. This was 37 working days more than its timescales. It then issued the stage 2 response 57 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord did not meet the expectations of the Code because it sent both the stage 2 acknowledgement and the response outside the required timescales.
20. The landlord did provide the resident with updates on when he could expect a stage 2 response. These were the same updates referenced in the earlier section. However, the landlord combined complaint‑handling updates with progress updates about the electricity service charge investigation. It should not have done this. The landlord should have issued its complaint response within its timescales and set out how it would provide separate updates on the service charge. Its approach was not in line with its policy or the Code.
21. The landlord acknowledged these failings in its complaint responses and offered the resident £650 compensation. The delays caused frustration for the resident. However, the level of compensation was proportionate to the impact identified. We therefore find reasonable redress in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Learning

22. The landlord should ensure it applies its complaint process in line with the Code. It should not delay issuing a complaint response while outstanding actions remain. Instead, it should provide the response within the required timescales and set out the level of contact the resident can expect. It should then adhere to that commitment. This approach allows the resident to raise a further complaint if the landlord does not meet the agreed level of contact or if the issues change.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s record keeping was inconsistent. It kept clear records of its investigation into the electricity service charge, but its records of communication with the resident were not appropriate. It did not provide evidence of any contact before the stage 1 complaint, and there were further gaps in the evidence. The resident later provided information about what took place during this period. The landlord should consider utilising our centre for learning on knowledge and information management to improve its practices.

Communication

24. The landlord did not communicate effectively at the start of the complaint or after the stage 1 response. It later provided more consistent updates, which was a positive step. The landlord should ensure it provides meaningful and timely updates to residents consistently in future.