Islington Council (202227376)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227376

Islington Council

17 April 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s query about the amount of service charge payable, and the associated costs due service charge arrears.
2. The administration of the resident’s service charge account, and the associated communication.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about the amount of service charge payable, and the associated costs due service charge arrears is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
From 2015 to 2021 the service charge invoices the landlord sent the resident were sent using the incorrect post code. The resident claimed not to have received them.
Due to service charge and major works arrears the landlord filed a claim at the county court for the money it said the resident owed, on 14 March 2023. As well as the service charge and major works arrears, the landlord sought to claim an additional amount for interest, and costs. The resident paid the full amount claimed shortly after the claim was submitted.
When bringing his complaint to this Service, in August 2023, the resident stated that he felt it was unfair to be charged interest, and other costs, as he had not received the invoices at the time they were issued.
Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a resident has had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
When the landlord issued its claim at court, the resident had the opportunity to challenge the charges levied, as part of the claim. The resident decided not to challenge the charges, and paid them in full. Given the resident had the opportunity to challenge the charges through court proceedings, we have determined this aspect of the resident’s complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1 bedroom first floor flat, and the landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident purchased the lease to the property in September 2014.
The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident’s property was managed by a managing agent, on behalf of the landlord, until April 2022. The managing agent responded to the stage 1 complaint, and the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint. For clarity, this report refers to both the managing agent and the landlord as “the landlord”.

Summary of events

From September 2015 to November 2020 the landlord sent the resident a total of 12 letters relating to estimated and actual services charges. The letters all contained the incorrect post code. It is unclear whether the resident received the letters.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 November 2020 and said he had received a letter, dated 18 November 2020, stating that he owed it for service charge arrears, and major works, and said:
1. Within the letter were several invoices that he had never received.
2. He asked it to explain what the charges were for.
3. He noted that some of the charges related to work done in 2014, and queried why he was only now being chased for payment.
4. He asked why the debt was allowed to “pile up”, and was now being asked to pay the money in a short period of time.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 December 2020 and attached the invoices it had sent him since 2014. It said that it understood the resident had not received the invoices, but it had sent them “regularly”. It advised him to speak to the home ownership team, if he needed more information on how the charges were broken down. It is also suggested contacting the post office to enquire about the “missing post”.
The landlord sent the resident 2 invoices in April and September 2021, both with the incorrect post code on the letter.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2021 to make a complaint, and said:
1. He was unhappy at the length of time it was taking to resolve the “invoicing issue”.
2. He had been unable to settle invoices due to them being issued with the incorrect post codes. He had tried to correct the issue with its accounts team, but was unable to.
3. He was frustrated by the quality of service he received, and the matter was causing him “undue stress”.
4. He did not want to pay the “solicitor fees” it had charged him due to the error.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 16 November 2021, and said:
1. It thanked him for discussing the complaint in more detail in a recent phone call.
2. It had rectified the error on its system, and it had now recorded his post code correctly.
3. It had decided to waive the “solicitor’s fee”.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the issue.
5. It was aware that he was concerned about a scaffolding charge, as scaffolding had to be erected a “number of times” to resolve a repair. It confirmed that that he had only been charged once.
6. It offered £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by not receiving the invoices.
The resident asked the landlord to take his complaint to stage 2 on 26 January 2022. He said the issue was still not resolved as it still sending invoices with the incorrect post code.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 follow on response on 9 February 2022. It said it had decided to increase its offer of compensation to £150 for the inconvenience caused, as it had come to its attention it failed to rectify the post code issue. The response advised the resident could have his complaint considered at stage 2 if he wanted to.
The landlord issued a claim at the county court for service charge arrears, and associated costs, on 14 March 2022. The resident made 2 payments to the landlord in March 2022 for the amount claimed, and the landlord did not pursue the claim further.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 9 January 2023, and said:
1. It upheld his complaint and apologised for error on the invoices.
2. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response, and offered £75 in compensation.
The resident contacted this Service on 7 February 2023, and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the compensation it offered did not put right the “time and effort” he spent contacting the landlord about the issue.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement states he is responsible for paying a service charge, and ground rent to the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord can award between £100 and £300 for “time and trouble”.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated it operated a 3 stage complaints procedure: stage 1, stage 1 review, and stage 2 (chief executive stage). It stated that stage 1 complaint responses would be sent within 21 calendar days, stage 1 review responses would be sent within 10 working days. It stated stage 2 complaint responses would be sent within 20 working days.

The administration of the resident’s service charge account, and the associated communication.

It is not within scope of this investigation to determine the liability, legality, or reasonableness of the resident’s service charges, as this is a matter better suited to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about service charges, its communication, and whether its approach was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The evidence indicates that the resident did not receive many of the invoices sent to him, from 2015 to 2020, as they were sent using the incorrect post code. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought an alternative means of communication with the resident in order to chase payment. Considering it had not received payments for over 5 years, it is unclear why the landlord did not seek to contact the resident by another means. Sending the invoices to the incorrect address was an evident failing in its record keeping that caused an inconvenience.
The lack of proactive action to communicate with the resident about the arrears, until 2020, was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter. Had it done so, it would have avoided the distress the resident experienced by receiving a large bill that he was not expecting. It is noted, however, that the resident’s lease agreement is clear that he is required to pay a service charge. As such, he was aware that he was required to pay the landlord for services it provided.
The resident raised a query about the historic charges he had just been made aware of, in November 2020. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord sought to check it had an accurate record of the resident’s details. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have checked its records were accurate when the resident explained he had not received its invoices for 5 years. The lack of curiosity shown about this query caused the resident an inconvenience, as the landlord did not update its records at that time.
As part of his stage 1 complaint, the resident raised a concern about the scaffolding charges he was being invoiced for. The landlord addressed this concern, and provided an explanation. It sought to reassure the resident he was only charged once, despite the scaffolding being erected several times. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as it sought to address specific concerns he had raised and reassure him about costs incurred.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately apologised for its admitted failings in relation to the post code issue. It offered £100 in compensation, which was appropriate at the time, given it was of the view it had resolved the matter. However, its response lacked a meaningful assessment of its handling of the concern, or an explanation of how the error occurred and what it would do to prevent similar failings occurring again. This was inappropriate.
The resident was cost further time and trouble in needing to raise the issue again, in January 2022, as it persisted. The landlord’s stage 1 follow on response appropriately apologised, and increased the offer of compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The evidence shows that the lack of learning by landlord impacted on its ability to resolve the issue. It was made aware of the issue in its records, yet continued to send invoices with the incorrect post code. This supports the conclusion that a lack of reflection on its own actions led to continued issues with its records.
As with the earlier complaint responses, the stage 2 response upheld the resident’s complaint, but did not give a meaningful assessment of its handling of the matter. This was inappropriate and caused a further inconvenience, as the resident was left not knowing how the issue occurred, and why it continued to make the errors, after it was made aware.
The resident was evidently distressed at receiving a large bill that he was not expecting. The landlord was not proactive in chasing payment for the arrears that accrued over several years. The resident was inconvenienced by this, and the inconvenience was increased by the fact the landlord continued to make the same error, after it became aware of the issue. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked the appropriate level of learning about its handling of the matter. The redress the landlord offered did not fully put right the distress and inconvenience its handling of the matter caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 21 calendar days, and 15 working days, after it was made. While it is noted that was within the timeframes set out in its policy at the time, its policy did not adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code, at the time, stated that stage 1 responses should be sent within 10 working days. While not an excessive delay, the resident was inconvenienced by an, albeit slightly, delayed complaint response. It is noted that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to comply with the timeframes set out in the Code.
After the resident asked his complaint to be taken to the next stage, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 follow on response. This was the correct application of its policy, at the time. However, its policy at the time was not compliant with The Code. The Code says that a landlord should have a 2 stage procedure to ensure the process is not “unduly long”. By having an additional stage before progressing to stage 2, it created a protracted process for the resident. This caused the resident a further inconvenience. It is noted that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy and removed the ‘stage one review’.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response over a year after the resident first asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2. This was an excessive delay, and well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations during the delay. The resident experienced a protracted complaints process, and was further inconvenienced by fact was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond to his stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not offer any meaningful assessment of why there had been such a protracted complaints process. This was inappropriate. The lack of learning, and length of delay, means the £75 it offered for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord has taken actions against the complaint handling recommendations we made in our special report of October 2023. We have therefore decided not to make a learning order in relation to the complaint handling failings identified in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about the amount of service charge payable, and the associated costs due service charge arrears is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the administration of the resident’s service charge account, and the associated communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident was evidently distressed at receiving a large bill that he was not expecting. The landlord was not proactive in chasing payment of the arrears that accrued over several years. The resident was inconvenienced by this, and the inconvenience was increased by the fact the landlord continued to make the same error, after it became aware of the issue. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked the appropriate level of learning about its handling of the matter. The redress the landlord offered did not fully put right the distress and inconvenience its handling of the matter caused.
There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2. It failed to respond in the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and the Code. Its complaint responses lacked the appropriate level of learning about its handling of the substantive issue.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £525 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £150 it offered for its handling of the administration of the resident’s service charges (if it has not already done so).
  2. A further £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its the administration of the resident’s service charges.
  3. The £75 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
  4. A further £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.