Hyde Housing Association Limited (202344763)

Background

1. The resident pays a variable service charge. The landlord sent its statement of actual costs for 2022-23. The resident complained it showed a deficit when the landlord’s costs appeared lower than its estimated charges. She also complained the landlord should not have charged for communal water and fire safety costs. She wanted the landlord to refund the charges and not raise them in future. She remained dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s complaint process because she felt it had not resolved her concerns about the charges for communal water and fire safety. She was also unhappy with its handling of her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries and concerns about the service charges for communal water and fire safety.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries and concerns about the service charges for communal water and fire safety.
4. There was service failure in its handling of the complaint.

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

Reasons

5. The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that happened or comment on all the information we reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Handling of queries and concerns about the service charges for communal water and fire safety

6. We did not investigate the resident’s complaint about the deficit from the 2022-23 actual costs. This is because she told us she considered the matter resolved.
7. The resident complained the landlord should not be charging her for:
   1. Communal water because her block did not “have any”.
   2. Fire safety servicing and repairs because her block did not have a fire detection system.
8. We do not investigate matters where the resident has had the chance to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. In this case, we can see the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) considered a claim by the resident, along with other residents, in 2019 about the reasonableness of service charges and liability to pay for the years 2010-11 to 2016-17. Relevant to this case, the Tribunal considered the accuracy of communal water charges and accepted the landlord’s submission that it was reviewing them and would refund any surpluses.
9. The communal water supply was capped around 2014 and it is not disputed there was no communal water supply which residents could use. The landlord continued to incur the cost of standing charges because the supply was not permanently disconnected. It recovered the cost through the service charges.
10. The residents could have put forward an argument that the water charges were not payable due to the supply being capped as part of their Tribunal claim. The resident can return to the Tribunal establish whether the cost is payable. As such we have not investigated whether the landlord was allowed to continue charging for communal water after the supply was capped. Our investigation focussed on how it responded to the resident’s concerns in her complaint of 18 January 2024.
11. In its stage 1 response of 24 May 2024, the landlord said it would not remove the capped supply in case it needed it in future. It said it would continue to charge for communal water to cover the cost of the standing charge. However, it did not explain why this was a cost it believed it could recharge the resident, despite her not being able to use the supply. There is no evidence the landlord explained this at any point.
12. The stage 1 response said the fire safety charges were for monthly testing and replacement bulbs and batteries for emergency lights. This implied the amount charged was correct.
13. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2024 saying the landlord had told another resident it would remove the charges for communal water and fire safety. She attached the email it had sent to the other resident dated 30 May 2024 and said it contradicted the landlord’s stage 1 response to her. She said emergency lighting was not installed in her block when the fire safety costs were incurred and the landlord’s information showed the costs were for smoke detectors which her block did not have.
14. On 17 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident saying it had refunded the communal water charges for the year 2022-23 and fire safety charges back to 2020-21. It did not explain why it had given the refunds but gave a breakdown of the sums refunded for each year.
15. The landlord missed another opportunity to explain why it gave the refunds in its stage 2 complaint response of 15 July 2024 and inaccurately said the refunds were yet to be applied. It also said it could not disclose information about the advice it gave to the other resident due to “data protection”.
16. It was appropriate the landlord refunded the fire safety charges because the evidence seen shows the costs incurred were not for the resident’s block. It should have explained its reasons for the refunds and acknowledged any mistakes it had made in administering the charges.
17. In our view, it could have explained the apparent contradictions between its stage 1 response and its response to the other resident without breaching data protection rules. Doing so would have helped to explain why its position had changed regarding the communal water and fire safety charges by the time of its final response.
18. In summary, the landlord refunded some charges for communal water and fire safety. However, it did not explain the refunds or acknowledge any mistakes in its administration of the charges. Further, there is no evidence it has explained its legal basis and why it considered it appropriate to continue to charge for communal water. This amounts to maladministration.
19. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and explain its legal basis for continuing to charge for communal water. It must also explain the reasons for the refunds it gave on 17 June 2024. We have not ordered it to pay compensation because it paid £200 through its complaint process for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in responding to the resident’s concerns. This amount is in line with our Compensation Guidance for the level of failings we have identified.
20. We recommend the landlord consults with residents about permanently disconnecting or reinstating the communal water supply. It should also send the resident a copy of the fire risk assessment done in 2019-20. The resident told us she asked for a copy after the landlord referred to it in its stage 2 response letter but did not receive a copy.

Handling of the complaint

21. The resident complained on 18 January 2024. While the landlord acknowledged her email, it did not log a complaint. In line with its Complaints Policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) it should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It should have given a stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
22. The landlord’s failure to respond to the complaint led the resident to ask the Ombudsman for help to progress it. This would have been inconvenient for her. It also delayed her in completing the landlord’s complaint process and being able to ask us to investigate.
23. It was appropriate the landlord logged the complaint after our intervention on 7 May 2024. It gave its stage 1 response within 8 working days of acknowledging the complaint. While the stage 1 addressed the service charge issues, it also referred to repair issues which were not part of the complaint and did not relate to the resident.
24. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 June 2024. She pointed out the mistakes in the landlord referring to repair issues and also that it had attached service charge information relating to a different scheme. It was appropriate the landlord immediately apologised for the mistakes but it would also have been reasonable for it to have sent the correct information it had intended to attach to its stage 1 response.
25. It gave its stage 2 response 27 working days later on 15 July 2024. It apologised again for the mistakes in its stage 1 response. It also apologised for not acknowledging the escalation request when it should have and for the delay this caused in it giving its final response.
26. The landlord identified some if its complaint handling failures during its complaint process. However, it did not identify its initial failure to log the complaint or acknowledge the delay it caused. As such, we find there was service failure in its handling of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise. We have not ordered it to pay compensation because it paid £100 for the failings it identified at stage 2 which is in line with our Compensation Guidance for the level of failings we have identified in its complaint handling.

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.