Leeds Jewish Housing Association Limited (202012647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012647

Leeds Jewish Housing Association Limited

25 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding:
1. communal caretaker costs;
2. alarm monitoring and warden services;
3. payment of a support subsidy;
4. apportionment of service charges for communal facilities;
5. staff costs;
6. water charges;
7. backdated communal electricity charges;
8. changes to warden duties;
9. changes to services and charges;
10. potential fire risks.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in 2011. The property is a first floor 2-bedroom flat within a 25-unit sheltered housing scheme for those over the age of 55 (‘Scheme A’). The resident lives there with his wife, and both have health conditions known to the landlord. Scheme A contains a combination of rented and shared ownership flats. It has a number of communal facilities, including a lounge, kitchen and dining area, which are used by residents of Scheme A and also on occasion by residents of other nearby schemes managed by the landlord.
The tenancy agreement sets out the obligations of the landlord and tenant, and the rights of the tenant. The landlord’s obligations include keeping the common parts of the building in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant. The tenant’s obligations include paying the basic rent, service charge, and any other charges made to the tenant by the landlord. The tenant has the right to information from the landlord – which may include information about the landlord’s policies and procedures – and the right to be consulted by the landlord before it makes changes in matters of housing management or maintenance that are likely to have a substantial effect on the tenant.
The tenancy agreement states that, except for changes in basic rent or service charges, the agreement may only be altered with the written consent of both the tenant and the landlord. If the tenant is not satisfied with the implementation of any part of the agreement, they should write to the landlord’s housing manager; if their complaint is not satisfactorily dealt with, they should write to the landlord’s chief executive.
The landlord’s complaints policy expands on the complaints process outlined above. The policy adopts the definition of a complaint used by this Service, ie “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. It goes on to distinguish between complaints and other types of communication from tenants, including enquiries, requests, comments, suggestions, and concerns or ‘pre-complaints’. The landlord will not follow its complaints procedure when the issue of the complaint occurred over 6 months ago (although where the problem is a recurring issue, it will consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue); when a tenant complains about the behaviour of another tenant; or when a tenant complains about their level of rent and service charge (eg they are unhappy with the amount of increase, rather than believing it has been incorrectly calculated).
Where a formal complaint is accepted for investigation, the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1, a member of staff appropriately placed to deal with the area of complaint will respond – with oversight by the landlord’s complaints officer – within 10 working days. A tenant may request a stage 2 review of their complaint within 20 working days of the stage 1 response, and a response will be sent within 20 working days of the review request. The stage 2 review will be carried out by the landlord’s complaints officer in consultation with a member of its management or executive management teams. The landlord classes unreasonable or unreasonably persistent complaints as those which hinder its consideration of their or other complaints. Actions and behaviours of unreasonable or persistent complainants include: changing the basis of their complaint as the investigation proceeds; making unnecessary and unreasonable demands on resources; and refusing to accept a decision or repeatedly arguing a point.
The landlord’s published information about service charges states that the service charge, which covers the cost of services beyond those specifically for a tenant’s property, is changed in April each year and is calculated from the actual costs incurred in the previous calendar year. Such services could include: repair and replacement of communal furnishings, like carpets; cleaning of shared areas; the warden call system; and providing water, electricity and gas supplies to communal areas and facilities.
The landlord’s property repairs handbook, dated April 2012, states that the landlord organises 6-monthly inspections of all sheltered housing properties. The cost of these inspections is covered by the service charge. The handbook provides a list of checks that will be carried out as part of these inspections, divided into the categories of ‘electrical’, ‘joinery’ and ‘plumbing’.

Summary of events

On 11 April 2019 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He stated that:
1. He was concerned about:
  1. the landlord’s recent review of all tenants’ leases, which had resulted in it increasing the service charges over the next 2 years by almost £47 per week;
  2. its statement that shared ownership tenants had not been paying enough rent for the last 18 years;
  3. its allegations that fully renting tenants had been subsidising the shared ownership tenants for the last 18 years.
2. The landlord’s actions in relation to these matters had caused him and other residents a great deal of distress, fear and upset.
3. Residents were told when they moved to Scheme A that they would have a home for life, but they now faced increased charges that were never stipulated as a possibility and that some could not afford.
4. His wife was diagnosed with a health condition in 2012. Since December 2018, when residents were informed of the increased charges, her condition had worsened. He believed the emotional upset caused by the service charge increase had brought about the deterioration in his wife’s health.
5. He believed that fully renting tenants had not been subsidising the shared ownership tenants, and that in fact it was the shared ownership tenants who had been subsidising the fully renting tenants for 18 years.
6. He had scrutinised the service charges for Scheme A and had found “numerous anomalies”. He felt that all tenants were due “several refunds”.
7. There was evidence that a management charge of £29.65, which the landlord said had never been paid by Scheme A tenants, had been paid by all tenants.
8. His late mother-in-law was a shared ownership tenant at Scheme A between 2001 and 2012, and he believed that she was due a substantial refund posthumously.
9. He requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss the above issues, and asked that its staff brought copies of relevant documentation to the meeting.
10. Since many of the issues within his complaint related to service charges, he did not consider it appropriate or acceptable for the landlord’s current financial director to be involved with his complaint.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint or provided any response in the 6 months after it was made.
Between 10 October 2019 and 11 November 2020, the resident informed the landlord that he wished to include queries regarding the following matters in his complaint: the cost of a communal caretaker; alarm monitoring, warden services and warden alarm services; a support subsidy previously paid by the local authority; apportionment of service charges for communal facilities; wardens, housing support workers and the costs associated with their duties; water charges; backdated communal electricity charges; termination of full-time and overnight warden duties; reduction and withdrawal of service charges without consultation; and potential fire risks.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s letters of 10 and 21 October 2019 on 23 October 2019 and said its officer would contact him when they returned from leave. The landlord subsequently telephoned the resident on 7 November 2019. On 15 November 2019 the resident told the landlord that he wished to pause his complaint for health related reasons; he also asked it to contact him by letter rather than by email or telephone. He later asked it to resume investigation of his complaint on 5 December 2019. The landlord wrote to the resident in relation to aspects of his complaint on 5 December 2019, 19 December 2019, 26 February 2020, 22 September 2020, 15 October 2020 and 3 December 2020, but did not provide a formal complaint response.
The landlord’s letter of 5 December 2019 stated that the support subsidy paid to it by the local authority ended in 2011. It also listed the duties of housing support workers at Scheme A, advised that it had not been given any further grants to part-fund the housing support workers since 2011/12, and confirmed that Scheme A had not been downgraded from its original status as sheltered housing. It provided a breakdown of the service charges for 2018/19 and 2019/20, noting that detailed information for previous years had been archived and that it considered it would take a disproportionate amount of time to retrieve and analyse the data requested by the resident, unless there was a specific unreasonable cost he wished it to investigate. It clarified that there was no longer a separate charge for communal caretaking/maintenance as the service ended in 2016 when its contractor ceased trading.
The landlord’s letter of 19 December 2019 addressed the 3 points made by the resident in his initial complaint. It stated that it had intended to introduce a management charge in line with shared ownership leases, which would have resulted in service charges increasing over the next 2 years, but had since decided not to apply this charge. As the resident was not a shared owner, the charge would not have applied to him if it had been introduced. The landlord also stated in its letter that it had not said shared owners were not paying enough rent; this point may have referred to an undercharge, which concerned the management charge rather than rent. It explained that its overheads were recovered through rents, management charges and admin fees that formed part of service charges, so any under-recovery from these areas of income resulted in less funding for maintenance and improvement of its tenanted properties. It said it was sorry to hear that the resident’s wife was unwell. Finally, it said that it only held information relating to service charges for 6 years, so it was unable to refer back to years before this. However, it noted that it was not appropriate to compare Scheme A to other schemes that lacked communal facilities. It attached its invoices for electricity charges in 2018/19, and provided a summary of these.
The landlord’s letter of 26 February 2020 addressed the resident’s queries regarding service charges in 2018/19. It explained that service charges varied from scheme to scheme depending on the age and size of the property, and that the charges were calculated based on actual invoices paid during the year. These included contracted services that cost a similar amount each year, such as garden maintenance and cleaning, and items that varied each year depending on usage, such as utilities and repairs.
The landlord’s letter of 22 September 2020 stated that no refund was due in respect of the caretaker charge of £3.12 per week that residents paid between 2013 and 2016. It explained that, during the period referred to, it contracted a fixed price maintenance service which was shared across all its sheltered schemes at a flat rate, irrespective of whether any work was undertaken. It advised the resident that, after the contract ended in 2016, it moved to its current regime of variable maintenance charges based on works completed.
The landlord’s letter of 15 October 2020 outlined the different repair responsibilities and charges paid by renting tenants and shared owners. It explained that the service charge to renters and shared owners was the same, as the cost of all communal services and repairs was split evenly between the 25 flats. It gave assurance to the resident that no double charging had taken place and no refund was due.
The landlord’s letter of 3 December 2020 referred to correspondence from the resident in which he said he had not received responses to his queries. It addressed each query in turn and provided dates that it had responded to them. While the letter was largely repetitive of previous communications, new points included the following:
1. The availability of invoices (such as those relating to water rates) had been explained to the resident in the past and was discussed at a meeting at Scheme A in March 2020, when he was present. Invoices relating to previous years’ service charges were no longer available for viewing.
2. The resident would need to speak to his utility provider regarding “extortionate electric bills” in order to gain an understanding of the charges made. It offered support if he required assistance in contacting his electricity provider or in understanding the bills previously provided for 2020 and 2021.
3. In relation to Scheme A residents paying an “unfair share of costs”, it had spoken to its sheltered housing manager and understood that nobody from its other schemes had hosted an exclusive event at Scheme A since March 2011. Tenants from smaller schemes had been invited to Scheme A for events organised by the landlord, such as an annual party and occasional brunches, with an average of 4 attendees from these schemes. This arrangement was also adopted across the landlord’s other larger schemes, with the cost of these events being met by the landlord and not subsidised by the scheme hosting the events. Given the infrequency of the events and small number of non-Scheme A attendees, it did not consider that there were any significant or material increases in communal utilities that would warrant a recharge or refund. It would therefore not be refunding Scheme A tenants.
4. It pointed out that, if a number of its tenants asked questions in a similar manner to the resident, it would not have the resources to respond. It was keen to sustain a good relationship with the resident, and asked him to consider a telephone discussion with its complaints officer.

The resident approached this Service for assistance in January 2021. Following intervention by the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 13 July 2021. This stated that:
1. It would usually speak to any resident who made a complaint before issuing a response. However, as the resident had requested communication by letter only, it had not attempted to speak with him. It provided contact details in case he wished to contact its stage 1 responder on receipt of its letter.
2. In response to his query about the cost of a communal caretaker:
  1. It had responded to this query in its letter of 3 December 2020, which referred to its earlier response on 22 September 2020. As it had not been able to discuss the matter with the resident, its response remained the same, and no refund was due.
  2. It noted that the complaint related to charges made almost 10 years ago, which made it difficult for it to provide a more detailed response.
  3. The resident had made a new request for all meetings between tenants and its staff to be minuted. As previous officers had explained, it did not consider the taking of formal minutes in all circumstances to be a good or effective use of staff time, and this would impact on future overheads and administrative costs.
3. In response to his queries about alarm monitoring, warden services and warden alarm services:
  1. It restated its previous responses of 5 December 2019, 7 October 2020 and 3 December 2020. Its response remained the same, and no refund was due.
  1. The resident was unhappy that letters he sent to a particular officer were responded to by a different officer. The responses were sent by the landlord’s complaints officer, as outlined in its complaints policy. The responses were made on behalf of the landlord’s organisation, and any responses by the other officer would have been the same.
4. In response to his query about a support subsidy:
  1. Its previous responses detailed that the support subsidy ended in 2011. It was the end of this funding that led to the withdrawal of 24/7 warden cover at Scheme A. As it did not lose funding a year later than it previously stated, no refund was due.
  1. It refuted the resident’s claim that it was lying about the end date for the subsidy.
  2. The resident had complained that housing support workers were not present at Scheme A between 23 March 2020 and 1 July 2020. Due to the first Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020, the service provided by its housing support team had to change in order to comply with legal guidelines and to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its staff and residents. This meant that, for a period of time, residents were contacted by telephone rather than in person. Had a Scheme A resident needed emergency assistance during this time, they would have been supported. The housing support team maintained a physical presence at another nearby scheme, where its main offices were located. It noted that residents of this other scheme were more vulnerable and paid more for this onsite staff presence.
5. In response to his query about apportionment of service charges for communal facilities:
  1. Its response remained as stated in its letter of 3 December 2020.
  1. It was unable to comment on correspondence dating back to 2008 and how service charges were apportioned at that time, due to the number of years that had passed and the fact that relevant staff had not been employed by the landlord for some time.
  2. It did not believe that the resident was owed a refund from 2001.
  3. With regard to evidence, it was not refusing to provide documents that the resident was entitled to receive, but it did not have documents dating back 20 years.
6. In response to his query about wardens, housing support workers and the costs associated with their duties:
  1. The resident’s previous queries regarding its housing support workers related to their duties, when the above subsidy ended, and whether Scheme A had been downgraded from sheltered status.
  2. It had answered these queries in its letters of 5 December 2019 and 3 December 2020. These listed the duties of housing support workers, advised that the subsidy ended in 2011, and confirmed that Scheme A had not been downgraded.
7. In response to his query about water charges for Scheme A:
  1. Its letter of 3 December 2020 had explained that an offer had been made for the resident to view the relevant statements within the specified time. However, he did not take up this offer. Residents may request to view or receive copy invoices in relation to their current year’s service charges for up to 6 months after being informed of their revised annual service charge.
  1. Should the resident wish to view the invoices for the current year’s service charge, he could do this by contacting its finance team by 25 August 2021.
  2. Due to the amount of time that had passed, it was unable to comment on arrangements relating to water bills from 2003 to 2011.
8. In response to his query about backdated communal electricity charges for Scheme A:
  1. It had previously addressed this matter in its letters of 19 December 2019 and 3 December 2020. Its response remained the same.
  1. The resident had raised some new queries which it would now answer.
  2. He asked why it took the landlord from 2001 to 2006 to realise that there had been an error in the communal electricity charges. Due to the number of years that had passed since 2006, it was unable to answer this query in detail. However, it could see from the documents provided by the resident that once it noticed the error, it contacted all affected residents.
  3. He asked why he was not informed when signing his tenancy agreement that residents could be charged retrospectively if an undercharge had been made. As his tenancy began in 2011, it was unable to refer to conversations held at that time. The tenancy agreement stated that tenants were liable to pay service charges, and communal electricity was part of that charge.
  4. With regard to an item that was added to the service charge statement in 2010 titled ‘communal heating and lighting’, it was difficult to know why this was added due to the length of time that had passed.
  5. The resident queried an error regarding the level of VAT on electricity charges between 2001 and 2005. Due to the length of time that had passed, it was unable to identify why the error occurred and why it took from 2001 until 2005 for it to be identified.
9. In response to his query about the termination of full-time and overnight warden duties, it had answered queries regarding the end of the subsidy in its responses above.
10. In response to his query about the reduction and withdrawal of service charges without consultation:
  1. The resident had asked for a reduction in service charge due to the removal of financial subsidy for white goods and their ongoing maintenance. Due to the length of time that had passed since his tenancy started in 2011, it was unable to comment on the arrangement in place at that time. It could confirm that the service charge costs represented the actual costs incurred in servicing and maintaining Scheme A, and that all costs were supported by invoices. Where appropriate, shared costs had been apportioned in a fair and accurate manner.
  1. The resident had asked for nightly security checks to be carried out at Scheme A. It could consult with all residents to see if this was a service that the majority would like it to arrange. However, it noted that any additional cost would be service chargeable.
  2. The resident had asked for 24/7 housing support cover to be resumed at Scheme A. Its Resident Consultative Group (RCG) was looking at the delivery of the housing support service across all schemes. If there was sufficient demand to increase the level of cover at Scheme A, this would be reviewed by management. If there was an increase in service, there would be an increase in support costs for residents.
  3. The resident had asked for a new records system to be set up at Scheme A, as he believed the current system to be out of date and inaccurate. It had spoken to its sheltered housing manager, who gave assurance that the tenant records and care plans at Scheme A (and other schemes) were up to date and accurate. As the current system was fit for purpose, it would not be allocating funds to set up a new system.
  4. The resident had asked for a copy of the landlord’s employer’s liability certificate to be displayed on the Scheme A noticeboard. It was not legally required to display this certificate at each of its working sites, as the certificate was only relevant for staff who could access it electronically.
  5. The resident had asked for a health and safety representative to be employed at Scheme A. It employed a range of staff and external consultants to ensure it met all its health and safety requirements, including those at Scheme A. It did not feel there was any additional risk or management need associated with Scheme A compared to its other sheltered schemes, which would justify the recruitment of an additional member of staff specifically to manage Scheme A.
  6. The resident had asked for a democratically elected tenant representative council. It was regulated by the Regulator for Social Housing and had to comply with 7 standards; one of these related to ‘tenant involvement and empowerment’. To support it in achieving compliance, it had appointed an external consultant with experience of setting up resident engagement to review its tenant engagement strategy in 2019. It had also recruited a full-time community engagement officer to ensure that this review was prioritised. As part of the review, a number of different models of engagement were considered, and all residents were given the opportunity to be involved in meetings where these models were discussed and a final decision was made.
  7. It had made the decision not to constitute a formal council, but instead to appoint resident ambassadors to represent different schemes or areas. All residents of Scheme A were given the opportunity to volunteer as ambassadors, and 2 did so. It did not elect the current representatives as it was concerned about low turnout of voters. When the current ambassadors were appointed, all residents were informed of who they were and it did not receive any objections. The ambassadors were in place for an initial 12-month period, and would be reviewed in October 2021. It provided a point of contact if the resident would like to be considered for an ambassadorial post or another role within its engagement structure.
  8. It had written to all residents in May 2021 inviting them to join a ‘hot topic group’ to consider how better to describe what was included in service charges as part of tenancy agreements and leases. It provided a point of contact if the resident was interested in joining. It noted that members of the RCG appointed themselves and were volunteers; they were not appointed by the landlord and reported directly to its board.
  9. The resident had raised a number of grievances about a particular tenant representative. As this individual was not an employee of the landlord, it was unable to comment on these points. It considered this a personal issue between the resident and the person in question. It noted that the representative had worked with it on tenant engagement in a variety of roles, but that it did not collaborate with them in order to appoint its own representatives in 2016.
11. In response to his query about potential fire risks:
  1. The resident had queried the lack of fire strips on the doors at Scheme A, and also the lack of firebreak materials on the landings. He stated that he had had a conversation with its sheltered housing manager and did not receive adequate assurance regarding this concern.
  2. It had spoken to its officer and they did not recall the conversation. It had also consulted with its property team.
  1. It had a legal duty to ensure that regular fire risk assessments were carried out in all communal areas. These were carried out by an independent inspector, who inspected the area concerned and issued a document detailing any actions required. The fire risk assessments carried out at Scheme A had not identified a need for any firebreak materials on the landings. There was also no legal requirement for floor metal strips underneath the fire doors, and so this was not identified during the assessment. It hoped this assured the resident of the fire safety for Scheme A.
12. It was sorry he had had cause to complain. It hoped its letter demonstrated that his feedback had been fully considered and that he was satisfied with the response.
13. If he remained dissatisfied, he could ask for an appeal to be considered at stage 2 of its complaints process within 20 working days.
14. As it had previously stated in a letter on 4 March 2021, it was happy to engage with a mediator to assist it in its discussions and to seek resolutions to the resident’s concerns if its letter did not resolve them.
15. It thanked him for the time he had taken in bringing his complaint to its attention, and appreciated that the collation of evidence would have been a very time-consuming task.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 25 July 2021, stating that:
1. It was untrue that the landlord had been unable to discuss the issues with him. Discussions did not have to take place in person or over the telephone; he preferred to be contacted in writing as the landlord did not make a record of verbal conversations and officers’ versions of such conversations sometimes contradicted his own. He had sent a number of letters which were not answered.
2. He had previously highlighted several discrepancies in relation to the communal caretaker charge, and he disputed the landlord’s rationale. He felt that the landlord had not been able to justify the charge and had provided conflicting explanations for it over a 5-year period. He maintained that the service was not provided and residents were each due a refund of £486.12.
3. He disagreed that the landlord had addressed alarm monitoring, warden services and warden alarm services in its letter of 3 December 2020. He felt that it had not provided “any logical or meaningful explanations” regarding these services. He had not been made aware that the officer who wrote to him regarding this matter was the landlord’s complaints officer. He maintained that, because the landlord had failed to provide invoices or other supporting documentation in respect of its services, residents were each due a refund of £798.72.
4. The landlord said he had accused it of lying about the end date for the support subsidy. This was not the first time “this kind of derogatory comment” had been wrongly used about him by the landlord; he found its officer’s comments to be insulting and affronting, and he expected a personal apology. Also, contrary to its statement that the funding cut resulted in the withdrawal of 24/7 warden cover at Scheme A, its former chief executive had stated in letters on 5 January 2011 and 8 December 2011 that the local authority reneged on its promise to fund 62 new sheltered units in 2011/12 due to the funding cut of £41,000. The landlord made strategic decisions about how to manage the services provided within its budget, and he believed that it decided to remove the full-time warden service from Scheme A and to base the wardens elsewhere.
5. There was nothing preventing the landlord from telling him whether other schemes were contributing to the communal facilities at Scheme A. Even if it claimed not to hold documents going back 20 years, the documents he provided should be sufficient for it to rely on. The landlord’s chief executive and chair had previously stated that other schemes contributed to the shared service charges for Scheme A facilities, but a document he obtained in 2019 showed that other schemes were not contributing. He continued to dispute the landlord’s rationale.
6. The landlord had failed to explain why its annual return and accounts stated that there were 11 wardens, care workers and cleaners in 2018, 11 housing support workers in 2019, and 9 wardens, care workers and cleaners in 2020, when there had only ever been 7 or 8 wardens at a time. It had also been unable to establish what distinguished housing support workers from wardens or what their actual duties entailed. To his knowledge the cleaners at Scheme A were external contractors who were paid via residents’ service charges, so if the landlord employed other cleaners, he requested details of their work. He also requested the exact date the landlord was paid the support subsidy and the methodology used to calculate the warden and housing support worker costs for Scheme A.
7. The landlord said it had offered him an opportunity to view service charge and water invoices, but he wanted to receive copies instead. It told him that it was not standard practice for it to supply invoices, despite such invoices having been given to him previously. He was also not informed of the 6-month rule for requesting copy invoices until the previous year, after the 2019/20 deadline had passed. He suspected any request he made in December 2020 would have been denied, as the cut-off for viewing invoices for the previous year was in August. When he asked how far back an invoice can be supplied, the landlord said 6 years. The meeting on 5 March 2020 referred to by the landlord was in fact a ‘drop-in session’ to discuss the coming year’s service charges; if the landlord maintained that it was a formal meeting, he wished to receive a copy of the minutes.
8. The landlord had not provided a satisfactory answer regarding backdated communal electricity bills. Its reference to the length of time that had passed seemed “a very convenient excuse” as it had referred back 6 and 19 years in response to other queries. He felt the landlord had not discussed the payment of backdated bills with residents or sought agreement from them. They therefore had no choice but to pay, despite the error being the landlord’s fault and responsibility. He reiterated his request for a refund and for his questions to be answered.
9. The landlord did not suffer a reduction of £41,000 in its sheltered housing budget for 2011/12, so he wanted to know why it reduced the warden service without discussion or agreement in 2011. In 2009/10 it could not produce or verify the true figures for warden salaries at Scheme A. While it said the removal of support subsidy funding by the local authority caused the reduction in the warden service, he had documents from the local authority and landlord which proved that the support subsidy was not for warden costs but intended to be awarded to residents on a low income. It was therefore the residents who lost out (on receiving a full-time warden service), not the landlord.
10. The landlord had admitted that most services referred to had been removed or reduced, but said it was willing to reinstate them at extra cost. Residents were already paying a charge for these services, as they were removed and the service charge did not reduce accordingly, so it was unfair to expect them to pay more.
11. He maintained that the current tenant records and care plan system at Scheme A was out of date and inaccurate. The landlord’s sheltered housing manager did not regularly attend Scheme A and had not consulted with residents regarding any changes to their records. Wardens also rarely visited Scheme A, so staff would not be aware of any changes/updates required.
12. He repeated his request to see the employer’s liability certificate. A copy of an expired certificate was displayed in the Scheme A staff office and on the entrance noticeboard in 2019.
13. He did not mean to suggest that the landlord should employ a health and safety representative solely for Scheme A, but that a suitable person should be employed to cover all of the landlord’s premises. He had not been informed which staff managed the health and safety requirements, and felt it was important that this information was shared.
14. As none of the resident ambassadors had been elected, he did not feel they represented him. The landlord’s correspondence in 2003 had stated that any resident engagement candidates should be democratically elected, and this had been breached. He also understood no minutes were taken at meetings between the landlord and resident ambassadors, which made it impossible to trust what was said and by whom. He noted that a former board member sat on a number of the landlord’s panels, which he felt was a conflict of interest.
15. He had witnesses and documentation relating to his conversations with the landlord’s sheltered manager about fire safety. On 12 July 2021 he received a letter from the landlord’s technical officer asking him to arrange an appointment to discuss the issues raised. He arranged to meet him at Scheme A on 16 July 2021, and paid extra postage costs to ensure the officer received his written response in time. On the day of the meeting, he waited for over an hour but the officer did not turn up (or inform him that he could not attend). A resident ambassador who saw him waiting offered to assist, but he had received no confirmation that they had passed on his concerns.
16. He remained unconvinced that the landlord would “react accordingly to the above serious issues”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 4 August 2021. It advised that, while it would usually respond within 20 working days, it would need to extend this timeframe due to annual leave and the amount of documentation requiring review. It apologised for the delay and said it would respond by 10 September 2021.
On 9 August 2021 the resident requested copy invoices and contract documents for 2020 from the landlord, following its service charge demand for 2021/22. The landlord sent him the relevant spreadsheets and invoices on 24 August 2021, noting that it would usually ask him to attend its offices to view the invoices, but that it had been happy to provide paper copies due to the Covid-19 pandemic. On 13 September 2021 the resident returned the documents, stating that his request had been only partially complied with because he had also asked for contracts and related documentation. He requested the additional documents, together with any policies that show the methodology used to determine apportionment of charges, as this would enable him to assess the accuracy of the charges for work undertaken.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 9 September 2021, stating that:
1. As before, it would usually speak to any resident who made a complaint before issuing a response. However, due to the resident’s preference for communication by letter only, it had again not attempted to speak with him.
2. The resident had not provided any new evidence in support of his appeal, and had referred only to documents supplied at stage 1.
3. It did not uphold his appeal regarding communal caretaker costs:
  1. It considered that an adequate explanation for the charge had been provided in its previous correspondence referred to at stage 1.
  2. The resident referred to correspondence which he believed provided contradictory explanations. It had reviewed this, and while it agreed that there was a difference in wording, this could be reasonably expected as the responses were made by different officers over several years. It considered that the essence of their responses was consistent, ie that a caretaking service had been provided at a fixed price, and this was included in residents’ service charge.
  3. It noted from records of tenant group meetings that no other sheltered housing unit had challenged the flat rate charge that was also applied to them. It had investigated further internally and found no complaints or recollections of complaints from other schemes about the service or charge.

It did not uphold his appeal regarding alarm monitoring, warden services and warden alarm services:
1. It was not normal practice for it to supply all invoices relating to service charges with the service charge demand. Any specific queries relating to service charges should be raised under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 up to 6 months after receipt of the demand. It noted that the resident had submitted a request in respect of the current year and signed to confirm receipt of documents on 27 August 2021.
1. It concluded that the costs associated with this item had been reasonably explained, and the main components and calculation of the costs for 2018/19 and 2019/20 had also been provided in detail.
2. A refund was therefore not due.
It did not uphold his appeal regarding the support subsidy:
1. The support subsidy was provided up to and including 2011/12, as confirmed to the resident by the local authority. In 2011/12 (the final year) the subsidy was paid as a grant directly to the landlord, as advised in its chief executive’s letter of 8 December 2011. The grant was used by the landlord to fund the 2011/12 day support service for residents, and due to the removal of the overnight service, no additional support charge was made to residents of Scheme A.
1. On the basis that the final payment of the subsidy was made directly to the landlord, and no charge was raised or paid by residents in 2011/12, a refund was not due.
2. It noted that the resident had repeatedly requested the date on which the subsidy ended from the landlord since 2019, but it was evident from the documentation he provided that he already had this information.
It did not uphold his appeal regarding apportionment of service charges for communal facilities:
1. It considered that its stage 1 response regarding historic correspondence and charges was reasonable, given that the period referred to spanned 20 years.
1. As part of its stage 2 response, it had carried out a review of more recent charges and usage.
2. For the past 6 years, no internal communal charges for Scheme A had been made to residents of other schemes. This does not necessarily mean that this was always the case, as charging methodology and apportionment of service charges could change over time.
3. As part of its review, it interviewed its sheltered housing manager in order to gain a better understanding of the recent usage pattern of communal facilities at Scheme A.
4. They confirmed that, in the past 5 years, the landlord had not organised any events at Scheme A that were exclusively for residents of other schemes. Social or celebration events organised by the landlord at Scheme A that were attended by residents from other schemes were also attended by Scheme A residents. Any additional communal heating or lighting would therefore have been incurred regardless of the attendance of residents from other schemes.
5. The average number of residents from other schemes who attended events organised by the landlord at Scheme A was 4. This was small compared to the number of Scheme A residents in attendance. Any additional wear and tear on furniture and furnishings was therefore insignificant compared to that caused by daily use of Scheme A residents.
6. In the 5-year period there had been 2 or 3 private religious/family events held in the communal lounge at Scheme A for residents from other schemes.
7. Its recent informal discussions with Scheme A residents indicated that the majority welcomed residents from other schemes attending social events at Scheme A. They recognised the benefit of supporting the local community and those residents who could otherwise become socially isolated. They were equally appalled at the suggestion of charging residents from other schemes or their families for use of the communal lounge.
8. Based on the above, it concluded that no refund was due. However, it would arrange for its housing team to carry out a formal consultation with Scheme A residents to determine whether to continue holding joint social events, and whether to charge residents from other schemes for use of the communal lounge in order to cover the marginal associated costs.
It did not uphold his appeal regarding wardens, housing support workers and the costs associated with their duties:
1. It considered the resident’s initial points had been adequately addressed at stage 1.
1. The resident had raised several new points in his appeal. Under its normal process, these would not be addressed at stage 2. However, in order to resolve the matter, it had opted to respond to these points.
2. The headcount of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in its annual accounts was calculated by auditors from its payroll records.
3. It used the terms ‘housing support worker’ and ‘warden’ interchangeably to refer to the same role. It had listed the duties of these staff in its stage 1 response.
4. Details of its staff team and their roles could be found on its website. In addition, its resident newsletter provided regular updates on staff changes.
5. For the avoidance of doubt, it did not employ anyone in the role of a cleaner.
6. It no longer held documentation in relation to the support subsidy. It had repeatedly informed the resident that it believed the funding to have ended in 2011. The resident had provided correspondence from the local authority indicating that the final year of funding was 2011/12; despite having this information, he had unnecessarily used its limited resource in dealing with this request.
7. Housing support worker and warden costs were based on salary and on costs associated with the housing support team. These costs were apportioned across all sheltered housing units using 3 rates. There were 2 day rates (a higher rate applied to 3 other sheltered schemes that had a higher staff presence during the day, and a reduced day rate to offsite sheltered schemes reflecting the reduced onsite staff presence) and a night rate (applied to another scheme where a staff presence was maintained overnight). Residents of Scheme A were charged the lower day rate only.
It did not uphold his appeal regarding water charges:
1. It again considered that the resident’s initial points had been adequately addressed at stage 1, and had departed from its usual process in responding to new points raised at stage 2.
1. It retained financial records for 6 years in line with standard sector practice. This did not mean that records relating to service charges were available for residents to view for a period of 6 years.
2. It was not normal practice for it to supply copy invoices as part of the annual service charge demand. Documentation provided by the resident indicated that until March 2009, it was charging for water rates separately, which is why the rates bill was supplied and recharged on a quarterly basis. This methodology was changed from 1 April 2009 so that water charges formed part of the annual service charge calculation, and consequently quarterly bills were no longer supplied from that time.
3. Under Section 22, residents had the right to inspect financial transactions where the request had been made within 6 months of the service charge demand being issued. The provision allowed for the inspection of invoices and not the supply of copies. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic, it supplied copy invoices and extended timelines for requests in order to follow the prevailing government guidelines at the time.
It did not uphold his appeal regarding backdated communal electricity charges:
1. It considered that, due to the age of this matter, it had adequately addressed the points made in the resident’s original complaint.
1. In addition, documents provided by the resident indicated that he was supplied invoices relating to this matter on 16 January 2007.
It partially upheld his appeal regarding termination of full-time and overnight warden duties:
1. The resident had requested to have a 24/7 warden service reinstated at Scheme A. In order for this service to be reinstated at the level requested, it would need to consult with other Scheme A residents.
1. An estimated cost to each resident for this level of support at Scheme A would be £80.86 per week. It provided details of its calculation.
2. It had arranged to undertake a consultation with residents to determine the demand for reinstatement of a 24/7 warden service, based on estimated costs.
It did not uphold his appeal regarding reduction and withdrawal of service charges:
1. The resident’s service charges for the past 6 years did not include any costs associated with the supply, repair, or replacement of white goods in individual flats. It had no plans to provide this service, which was consistent with its other sheltered schemes.
1. It considered that it had addressed the resident’s query regarding security checks adequately in its stage 1 response. The costing and consultation exercise would be undertaken in conjunction with the consultation on reinstatement of a 24/7 warden service.
2. It considered that it had addressed the resident’s query regarding withdrawal of the overnight warden service and reduction of daytime support hours adequately in its stage 1 response, and elsewhere in its stage 2 response.
3. It had investigated the resident’s concerns regarding medical records further as part of its stage 2 response. It confirmed that the personal records of Scheme A residents were up to date. The records were updated by housing support workers through their regular communications with residents. It noted that the term ‘care plan’ was incorrectly used in its stage 1 response; this was due to confusion regarding terminology. It clarified that any care plans would be updated by the care provider, and it did not hold copies of these.
4. It considered that it had addressed the resident’s query regarding its employer’s liability certificate adequately in its stage 1 response.
5. Its property services manager had overall day-to-day responsibility for the health and safety of its premises. It also employed a health and safety specialist to support its property services manager and to provide support to its organisation with regard to its health and safety responsibilities. In addition to this, a number of specialist contractors undertook scheduled checks and assessments in respect of fire, electrics, gas, asbestos, lifts and water hygiene.
6. It considered that it had addressed the resident’s query regarding tenant representation adequately in its stage 1 response.
It did not uphold his appeal regarding potential fire risks:
1. The resident had referred to a conversation with its sheltered housing manager but had not provided details of this as part of his appeal, so it was unable to investigate this further.
1. He had also referred to a recent missed appointment with its technical officer. It had addressed this in a letter sent on 26 July 2021. It again apologised for the confusion regarding this.
As stated at stage 1, it was sorry the resident had cause to complain and hoped its letter showed that his feedback had been considered.
It reiterated its offer of mediation as a way of resolving his concerns, if he felt they remained unresolved.

Post complaint

On 15 September 2021 the landlord consulted with residents of Scheme A regarding 3 issues: whether residents of other schemes should be charged a higher rate for participating in Scheme A events, to cover their share of communal facilities/utilities; whether residents of other schemes should be charged for use of Scheme A facilities in connection with private religious/family events; and whether a 24/7 warden service should be reintroduced at a cost of £80.86 per week. On 6 December 2021 it wrote to residents regarding the outcome of the consultation. It advised that no respondents agreed to charging residents of other schemes for attending joint or private events at Scheme A, and none agreed to paying extra for a 24/7 warden service. It noted that some residents had contacted it to say they were upset that the question about charging other residents had been asked. Based on the consultation outcome, there would be no changes to current charges. The landlord also wrote separately to the resident regarding the consultation outcome the same day.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response between 10 October 2021 and 28 October 2021, stating that:
1. The landlord had failed to evidence that the £3.12 weekly charge was to cover a 3-year fixed price communal caretaker contract, so this issue remained in doubt. It also failed to consult with residents regarding its intention to subcontract a maintenance company to deliver this service between 2013 and 2016. It therefore failed to apply or respect the terms of its tenancy agreement relating to altering the agreement, disputes, and tenants’ right to consultation. Since it was obliged to keep copies of contract documents and invoices for 6 years, if it could not produce these, he had no option but to believe the contract never existed and a refund was due.
2. Despite the landlord’s claim that it was the warden’s duty to test the fire alarm system for Scheme A, he had seen the testing regime being carried out by its maintenance operatives. He was suspicious as to why the warden and operatives were carrying out the same work while residents were being charged for both separately. He felt they should not be charged twice. The landlord had failed to evidence that any subcontractor was responsible for fire alarm testing, or to be transparent about this matter. He maintained that a refund was due.
3. An error in calculations relating to apportionment of service charges needed to be corrected, as the total amount should be divided between all sheltered units (37 properties) rather than just Scheme A units (25 properties). The landlord had failed to demonstrate when or how a review of charges relating to usage of communal facilities was conducted. He felt that it should admit its failure to consult with residents prior to altering any agreement, and start to “act openly and honestly and make good the corrections”.
4. The support subsidy, which was for residents with low incomes, was paid directly to residents by the local authority to supplement their rent payments. The landlord admitted that the subsidy for 2011/12 was paid to it as a grant, rather than to eligible residents. It did not reduce the warden cover charge for those residents in 2011/12. It did not make any difference that he knew the date the subsidy ended, as he wished to demonstrate the extent of the landlord’s openness and transparency. The landlord had claimed the funding ended in April 2011, whereas it did not end until 29 March 2012, and Scheme A residents were not informed of their entitlement to it during 2011/12. He believed a refund of £574.60 per unit was due.
5. The landlord continued to deny him information regarding the actual duties of the wardens and housing support workers, how associated costs were calculated, and whether the maintenance operatives were included in the headcount for wardens and housing support workers. He asked it to state how many staff were employed in each role, and to evidence the method used to calculate service charges based on the cost of each employee. If it failed to do so, he believed it must have “something to hide”.
6. He did not accept the landlord’s explanation for refusing to supply copy invoices for water rates, and believed an exception should be made due to his concerns about how such charges had been administered in the past. He felt he had a right to receive past copy invoices relating to any and all service charges which he had paid, and that he should not have to rely on the landlord’s word. He said it was unfair that he was required to pay charges but were denied the opportunity to scrutinise past invoices when he suspected that some figures may be inaccurate or illogical.
7. The landlord had failed to provide copy invoices and other documents relating to electricity charges from 2001 to 2007. However, he still had copies of invoices for these years and was able to demonstrate the sequence of events. He maintained that the landlord had not conducted meaningful consultation with residents of Scheme A at the time, and that residents should not have been burdened with repaying backdated charges of £15,000. He noted that residents were initially told that they were only liable for electricity charges relating to their own properties, which was the case for 6 years from 2001.
8. The landlord’s recent consultation form was dated 15 September 2021 but was delivered to residents on 17 September 2021. Since responses were required by 20 September 2021, this gave residents only 3 and a half days to respond. He felt this was too short a time and unfair. He also felt it was a deliberate move by the landlord to justify withdrawing the offer. He took issue with the wording of the consultation and felt one item was taken out of context. He maintained that the landlord was falsely claiming local authority funding for a 24/7 warden service was withdrawn a decade earlier, as he had demonstrated that the local authority did not cut any funding from Scheme A. He noted that other schemes paid £29.86 per person per week for an identical 24/7 warden service, compared to the extra £70.34 quoted. He believed the £10.52 currently paid by Scheme A residents should already cover the 24/7 warden service they were led to expect since 2001, and that if a reduced service was provided, the service charge should also be reduced.
9. The landlord had failed to follow proper procedures to allow residents to democratically elect representatives. He refuted its claim that all residents were given the opportunity to become a resident ambassador, as he only discovered that volunteers were being sought from its in-house magazine. The magazine stated that volunteers were not required for Scheme A, and when he queried this, he was told that 2 representatives had already been chosen. A letter from the landlord’s housing manager on 1 July 2003 referred to a recommendation by the Audit Commission that all resident and tenant groups should be formally constituted and democratically elected. He asked why the landlord had reneged on its advice, and said that having representatives chosen by the landlord “makes a mockery of the whole process”.
10. He had demonstrated that the landlord could not provide true figures to justify withdrawing the 24/7 warden service. He believed it did not suffer a £41,000 cut in sheltered housing funding from the local authority.
11. Promotional material for Scheme A in 2001 stated that each flat included a fridge/freezer, electric oven, hob and washer/dryer, all of which were classed as white goods. According to an open letter from the landlord’s housing manager on 1 July 2003, all white goods in the kitchens had already been paid for by the landlord, and the repairs and maintenance of such items would be covered by service charge payments. A letter from the landlord’s housing services director on 29 September 2014 then stated that all ovens and hobs were gifted to residents and could be removed by them on leaving the property if they wished. It also stated that any repairs were the responsibility of the occupant (while the extractor fan/hood remained the responsibility of the landlord). He felt that conflicting information had been provided by the landlord’s senior management team over the years. Additionally, residents had not been consulted regarding any change in policy, and there was no reduction in service charges to reflect the changes.
12. He had made a Section 22 request for copy invoices, contracts and related documentation on 9 August 2021. The request was only partially complied with, because while invoices and spreadsheets were provided, contract agreements were not. The landlord also said he would normally need to attend its offices to inspect such documents, but this was not possible due to his and his wife’s medical conditions, which it was aware of. He saw no reason why it could not provide documents to him in other ways, as it had done previously.
13. As part of his Section 22 request, he sought documents concerning a company who supplied and fitted carpets to the communal areas of Scheme A in June 2016. The company was dissolved on 15 September 2015, and he believed it did not complete the works in a proper manner. As well as replacing firebreak materials and metal strips under fire doors with carpet, it did not adopt best working practices.
14. The landlord had not adequately addressed the issue of nightly security checks at Scheme A. Residents were informed by letter on 11 April 2011 that as there was no longer a 24/7 warden service, wardens from a nearby scheme would attend Scheme A to complete the security checks. Residents formed a social committee on 17 January 2014 and security at Scheme A was discussed; residents had noticed that wardens were not attending as promised, and raised concerns with the landlord on 15 April 2015. On 1 June 2015 the social committee felt it was necessary for residents to follow a checklist in order to maintain the security of the building themselves. The checklist was not always reliably followed and a reminder was sent out by the social committee on 31 March 2016. A rota system was then formed by residents, but did not last long. Some residents still undertook nightly checks, but he felt it should not be their responsibility, and that this could have a bearing on insurance liabilities. He believed this was another example of the landlord failing to deliver services that residents paid for.
15. He believed the landlord’s claim that medical records were up to date was untrue, because of his own and his wife’s experiences. In the past 10 years, he was aware of records being updated in 2013, 2015 and 2019, which he did not consider to be a regular basis. He felt the current system was “outdated, disjointed and unsatisfactory”, as well as potentially dangerous, and requested that a more robust system was created. He suggested that the landlord gained the appropriate authority to access a local healthcare record system in order to access up to date information about residents (with their consent).
16. The landlord had not taken steps to rearrange the meeting with its technical officer that it missed on 16 July 2021. It also failed to act on his discussions with a resident ambassador regarding fire safety concerns. On 13 August 2021 he saw someone conducting a fire risk assessment at Scheme A, and walked round the building with them to point out areas of concern. On 23 August 2021 he saw a maintenance operative stripping paint from a support column in the communal dining room, which they said was part of a fire risk assessment. He expected to receive a copy of the fire risk assessment report, as he expected such work would be charged to residents in the next year’s service charge demand. He also remained concerned that the landlord did not take health and safety issues seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(c) and (e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising), or which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relating to events that predate the complaint by a number of years, or relating to the level of service charge, are therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident has been signposted to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and Leasehold Advisory Service in relation to some of these matters.
Due to the above, the Ombudsman has not considered some historic aspects of the resident’s complaint – or, where these are referred to for context, limited weight has been attributed to them. Matters not considered include complaints made by the resident on behalf of his late mother-in-law and/or her estate, and a complaint about a tenant representative who is not an employee of the landlord.
The Ombudsman notes that the complaint involves a large volume of correspondence and other documents. The resident’s efforts in compiling evidence in support of the matters raised are recognised, as are the challenges faced by the landlord in reviewing these documents and coordinating a response in relation to each area of concern. While not all documents and events are explicitly referred to, all have been examined and taken into account during this investigation.

Communal caretaker costs

The resident claimed that he was due a refund for a caretaker/maintenance service that he paid for via his service charge between 2013 and 2016, but said he did not receive. Given that this aspect of the complaint was raised in 2019, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it was unable to access information relating to inspections as its contractor had ceased trading. It was also appropriate for it to confirm that residents were no longer being charged for the service.
The landlord later expanded on its explanation, stating that it had contracted a fixed price maintenance service between 2013 and 2016 which was shared across its sheltered schemes at a flat rate whether work was completed or not. While the Ombudsman notes that the repairs handbook supplied to this Service says the landlord will carry out 6-monthly inspections of its sheltered housing properties, and the resident says such inspections were not completed, it is not possible to make a finding in relation to this due to the absence of records and the length of time that has passed. For the same reasons, this investigation cannot consider whether the landlord complied with the terms of its tenancy agreement when it made changes to its maintenance service in 2013 and 2016.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident received different information from different members of staff over a period of several years. It is understandable that there would be some variation in wording between individuals and contexts. Although it cannot be said for certain that no conflicting information was given, the landlord’s explanation for this – that the essence of the responses was consistent – was satisfactory. In addition, it was good practice for it to make further enquiries internally as part of its complaints process by examining available meeting and complaint records.
The landlord subsequently informed this Service that it had no formal contract with the company who delivered its maintenance service between 2013 and 2016, and that instead the service was carried out by “mutual arrangement”. Having a written contract would have assisted the landlord in monitoring and managing performance as well as demonstrating openness in its decision making. Had the landlord informed the resident of the nature of its arrangement with its contractor when he first enquired, it is possible that this aspect of his complaint could have been resolved more swiftly. However, due to the timescales involved, no serious additional detriment was caused to the resident as a result.
It should be noted that documents such as policies and handbooks may be reviewed and updated periodically by landlords. When this occurs, it is good practice for residents to be made aware of changes that may affect them. Any such communications should take account of residents’ circumstances, vulnerabilities and preferences – for example, a website update may not be accessible to all residents. Although the taking of formal minutes may not be feasible in all situations, recommendations have been made in relation to communication and record keeping.

Alarm monitoring and warden services

The landlord’s use of the terms ‘alarm monitoring’, ‘warden services’ and ‘warden alarm/services’ to refer to the same (or very similar) service charge item was confusing. Even if the terms could not be changed – for example, for IT or auditing reasons – a routine annotation or footnote on any altered service charge items could have improved residents’ understanding of their annual demand notice.
When the landlord first responded to the resident’s query regarding this, it provided a breakdown of the past 2 years’ service charges but did not clarify what the above terms meant or why these changed. The breakdown used non-specific wording like “housing support worker supplies” alongside more specific wording like “charges in respect of lone working monitoring devices”. The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that it had provided “the main components and calculation of the costs for 2018/19 and 2019/20”, but while it evidently felt that it had been clear, it did not listen to the resident when he told it that the breakdown did not address his query satisfactorily.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that classification of costs may vary, and to decline to invest significant time in retrieving and analysing large amounts of information without a particular area of focus. Likewise, it was reasonable for it to follow its usual practice in declining to provide invoices or documentation outside of its legal requirements. However, it repeatedly referred back to previous communications when responding to further queries from the resident. From the correspondence, it should have been apparent that the resident was trying to understand whether the 3 differently titled services were the same, and what exactly they involved in terms of chargeable costs. Quoting its earlier letters, even when copies were enclosed for ease of reference, was therefore unhelpful. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord may have found it easier to discuss aspects of the resident’s complaint with him verbally, but since it did not appear to accommodate his earlier requests for a meeting (in April and December 2019), it should have accepted his preference for communication in writing without asking him to reconsider this on multiple occasions. It could have sought support in making its written explanations clearer if it was struggling with this.
It was appropriate for the landlord’s complaints officer to respond to the resident regarding an aspect of his complaint on 5 December 2019, albeit that a formal stage 1 complaint response was not issued at this stage (discussed in more detail under ‘complaint handling’ below). However, the officer did not identify themselves as the complaints officer, and their signature stated their job title to be ‘HR & Resources Manager’. The Ombudsman accepts that this may have been their substantive title, but if they were responding in the capacity of complaints officer, this should have been stated to avoid confusion – both in their signature and in the first paragraph, when they acknowledged that they were responding to an enquiry sent to a different officer.
While the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s failure to provide detailed information or documentation justified a refund being made to the resident for alarm or warden services, its poor communication in relation to this matter has resulted in a finding of service failure.

Support subsidy

The evidence received from the resident and landlord about payment of a support subsidy appears to contain conflicting information. The resident states that the subsidy was paid directly by the local authority to eligible residents to supplement their rent payments, whereas the landlord states that it was paid as a grant to the landlord to subsidise support services. The Ombudsman has also had sight of a letter from the local authority to the resident in 2021, in response to an enquiry he made, which states that “the [subsidy] was paid to [the landlord] for 2 contracts”. The letter confirms that one of the contracts, relating to floating support, ended in 2011, whereas the other, relating to the sheltered housing alarm service, ended in 2012. Both the landlord and the local authority are clear that the sheltered housing alarm service subsidy related to daytime support only.
When the resident first enquired about the end of this subsidy, the landlord told him that it ended in 2011. Its stage 1 complaint response simply signposted him to its earlier responses, with which he was not satisfied. It was not until the landlord issued its stage 2 response, 2 years after the resident’s initial enquiry, that it said the final year of funding was 2011/12; the resident has informed this Service that the final payment was made on 29 March 2012, although the source of this information (“from a neighbour”) means that it cannot be independently verified. The local authority separately confirmed to the resident that the subsidy was paid at a rate of £11.05 per week for both 2010/11 and 2011/12, which was at odds with the landlord’s statement that it had not been given any grants to part-fund the housing support workers at Scheme A between 2011/12 and 2019.
The stage 2 response also clarified that the final year’s funding was paid directly to the landlord as a grant, which it used to fund the daytime support service for residents. This was in accordance with a letter it sent to the resident in December 2011, seen by the Ombudsman, which said that “for 2011/12 nobody is paying this support charge, we simply receive a blanket grant to run a service”. On the basis that residents did not pay separately for the service covered by the grant in 2011/12, the landlord’s final explanation was reasonable, although its communication could have been clearer and it should not have taken 2 years to set out its position comprehensively. It is noted that the resident believes the landlord did not reduce the warden cover charge for affected residents in 2011/12, or inform them of their entitlement to the subsidy for that year; unfortunately, due to the length of time that has passed, a finding cannot be made in relation to this. Had the year in question fallen within the 6-year period for which the landlord holds records, an order would have been made for the landlord to revisit the matter and reconsider whether a refund was due.
It was appropriate for the landlord to provide a list of housing support workers’ duties to the resident when he enquired about this in 2019, and for it to promptly and consistently confirm that Scheme A retained its sheltered housing status. The landlord’s justification at stage 1 for housing support workers providing remote support during the first 4 months of the Covid-19 pandemic was also reasonable, given the government guidance in place at the time. However, it was disingenuous for it to state that it was the loss of subsidy funding that “led to the withdrawal of 24/7 warden cover at [Scheme A]”. While this may have been the effect of subsequent budgeting decisions, the subsidy related to daytime support and the landlord should have accepted responsibility for its budget management. The Ombudsman has had the opportunity to inspect a letter sent by the landlord to the resident in December 2011, which stated that the local authority had “reneged on its promise to fund a further 62 units of sheltered housing”. Although limited weight can be attached to this, due to the age of the document, it is notable that it did not establish a causal link between the withdrawal of anticipated funding and reduction in the warden service.
The language used by the landlord in a letter to the resident in 2011, which he raised as part of his escalation request in 2021, was unprofessional and overly personal. The landlord told the resident he had “accused [it] of lying”. While this document is again historic, the Ombudsman has seen other correspondence in which a professional level of distance and neutrality is not maintained – for instance, a letter sent to residents in 2008 which said “how sad that you who live at [Scheme A] have become so territorial” and “perhaps you will now reflect on your position and realise that it is tenable neither legally nor morally”. Due to the length of time that has passed since these letters were sent, no finding has been made in relation to this, but the Ombudsman notes that landlords’ communications are expected to be objective, fair and evidence-based. The recommendation already made in relation to communication seeks to support this.
Finally, the landlord inferred blame on the resident by stating in its stage 2 response that he had “unnecessarily used [its] limited resources in dealing with this request” and “repeatedly requested the date on which the subsidy ended since 2019, but it was evident from the documentation provided that [he] already had this information”. Though this may have been the case, it was reasonable for the resident to request information from the landlord using the appropriate channels if he suspected an error had occurred. This was an obvious way of corroborating or refuting the evidence he already held. The Ombudsman appreciates the efforts invested by both the resident and the landlord in addressing the complaint, but would not expect a landlord to discourage residents from making use of options available to them if they have a genuine concern.
If the landlord felt the resident was making an “unreasonable or unreasonably persistent” complaint, as defined in its complaints policy, it should have said so and invoked any relevant process. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident was simply seeking answers to legitimate questions, and his persistence was a result of these answers not always being forthcoming. Though he did, to an extent, change the basis of his complaint as the investigation proceeded, this was due in part to the length of time that passed before his complaint was adequately addressed and to new information becoming available. Allowing the resident to submit his complaint in the form of bundles with exhibits – given his preference for written communication and concerns about face-to-face contact during the pandemic – was a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances, and it was unfair of the landlord to hold him responsible for the impact on its own resources.
Overall, the landlord’s delays in adequately responding to the resident regarding the support subsidy and related matters, together with its initially evasive explanations and negative attitude towards the resident, have resulted in a finding of service failure.

Apportionment of service charges for communal facilities

The resident was concerned that he and other Scheme A residents were paying an unfair share of costs relating to the communal facilities at Scheme A, which were occasionally used by residents of other nearby schemes. The Ombudsman has had sight of a letter sent by the landlord to residents in 2008, which stated that Scheme A was designated as having shared communal facilities with another scheme and that tenants of both schemes had “equal rights to make use of and contribute towards the cost of these shared facilities”. It is noted that this letter predated the start of the resident’s tenancy. The resident then informed the landlord as part of his complaint that he had recently reviewed the past service charges and found that tenants of the other scheme had not been paying towards Scheme A’s service charges. It was reasonable of the landlord to liaise with its sheltered housing manager in producing an initial response, and its provision of data relating to usage of Scheme A facilities by other residents was helpful.
The landlord’s initial response in December 2020 did not dispute that Scheme A residents were paying the “full share of communal costs”, although it also did not explicitly state its acceptance of this. Despite the low usage of facilities by other residents indicated by its data, if it acknowledged that it had provided conflicting information about payment towards the shared facilities, or if its position had changed, it would have been appropriate for it to take responsibility for this, apologise and account for its decision making. Likewise, since it later accepted that its apparent change in position warranted a consultation, it should have done this at the outset. The fact that the costs had so far been low was irrelevant; they may not have remained low, and the key issue was whether Scheme A residents should cover the full costs associated with the communal facilities, contrary to previous communications.
The landlord’s stage 1 decision (in 2021) not to comment on correspondence from 2008, and not to offer a refund for matters dating back to 2001, was reasonable in view of the length of time that had passed. It could not be expected to hold records dating back 20 years, and even if the resident was able to supply them, the resources involved in examining and accounting for its actions over a period of this length would be disproportionate. However, it would have been appropriate at this stage for it to confirm or deny whether residents of other schemes were currently contributing towards the cost of communal facilities in Scheme A, in response to the resident’s request. This may have led it to identify the opportunity for a consultation more promptly and to avoid a protracted sequence of correspondence.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was more sensitive and took account of the outcomes sought by the resident. It confirmed that “no internal communal charges for [Scheme A] had been made to residents of other schemes” in the past 6 years. While it did not apologise for any miscommunication, confusion or changes to policy without consultation, the timeframe of 6 years was appropriate. A more detailed summary of recent usage with reference to cost implications was again helpful, and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously by discussing the issue with other Scheme A residents. Importantly, at stage 2 the landlord committed to taking positive action in order to gain the views of Scheme A residents. This was consistent with the approach set out in its tenancy agreement. While the 3-day response time for the consultation form may have seemed short, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord would have been aware of the contact preferences and abilities of its residents. The response rate (16 out of 25 residents, ie 64%) indicated that the response time had not been a barrier to engagement. Indeed, even in the event of a 100% turnout with the remaining 9 residents taking an opposing view, those who voted not to charge residents of other schemes would still have constituted the majority.
In summary, the landlord did a number of things well in responding to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It had no control over historic events and communications and, while these provided a useful background, it could not be held responsible for them in 2021. Its eventual decision to conduct a consultation, to communicate the results of the consultation promptly (with a separate communication to the resident), and to act in accordance with the majority’s wishes, was satisfactory. However, its delay in doing so, initial avoidance of the resident’s questions and undue emphasis on usage data, together with its lack of apology or other redress, has resulted in a finding of service failure.

Staff costs

Some aspects of this complaint are discussed above in relation to the support subsidy. The resident noted in his request to add this query to his complaint (on 1 October 2020) that he had written to the landlord about staff duties and costs on 10 October 2019, but had not received a reply. As discussed above, it was reasonable for the landlord’s complaints officer to respond on behalf of the officer to whom the resident’s letter was addressed, although their role should have been made clear. The delay of two months in responding (on 5 December 2019), while not excessive, was longer than would be expected given the initially straightforward nature of the resident’s questions. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord provided a good level of detail and made a genuine attempt to explain its position and resolve the issue for the resident.
In his escalation request, the resident queried an apparent discrepancy between staff numbers stated in the landlord’s annual return/accounts and the number of staff he was aware of who worked at Scheme A. He also asked what distinguished housing support workers from wardens, and whether the landlord’s cleaners were subcontracted or directly employed. The landlord exercised appropriate discretion in addressing these new points in its stage 2 response. It provided clear and helpful answers, confirming the source of the information in its accounts and that it used the terms ‘housing support worker’ and ‘warden’ interchangeably. Though understandably confusing, this was no doubt useful information for the resident. The landlord also signposted the resident to its website regarding details of its staff team and roles, but in view of the resident’s preferences and specific request, it was appropriate for it to clarify that it did not directly employ any cleaning staff. Its explanation of the different rates for high/low and day/night staff presence was similarly helpful and demonstrated openness. Altogether, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint to have been reasonable. Although the resident wished to receive more detailed information about how service charges were calculated based on the cost of each employee, the landlord had no obligation to provide such details outside of its published accounts, and it had already engaged sufficiently with this request by listing the duties of its staff.

Water charges

The landlord is obliged by the Limitation Act 1980 to retain financial records for at least 6 years, and by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to make “accounts, receipts and other supporting documents” available to residents for 6 months following the issuing of a summary of relevant costs (in this case, a service charge demand notice). Since these requirements are set in law, there was no requirement for it to specifically inform the resident of them. Even so, when he requested 6 years’ worth of copy water rates invoices, it was able to cite occasions when it had discussed the availability of invoices in the resident’s presence. In the Ombudsman’s view, whether such discussion took place during an informal drop-in session or during a formal meeting was of little consequence, although if the landlord had previously indicated that an invoice could be supplied to him for up to 6 years, this was misleading. In the absence of any record of the comments made, which may have provided useful context, no finding can be made in relation to this.
Although the landlord would normally make relevant invoices available for residents to view at its offices, it was appropriate for it to produce and send paper copies to the resident (at its own expense) when the Covid-19 pandemic prevented him from being easily able to visit its offices. The fact that it did so on one occasion did not commit it to doing so again under different circumstances. Similarly, the fact that it had previously provided quarterly water rates bills – when residents paid based on their actual water usage, rather than at a flat rate – did not commit it to doing so under its new payment regime. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s enquiries about water usage and costs, and despite his concerns about discrepancies or inaccuracies in other areas, it was not required to provide historic water invoices to him on an exceptional basis. It was also understandably unable to comment, in 2021, on arrangements relating to water bills from 2003 to 2011.

Backdated communal electricity charges

The Ombudsman has had sight of a letter sent by the landlord to residents of Scheme A in 2006, in which it informed them of an unexpected communal electricity bill of £15,000 it had received and a corresponding service charge increase. While this letter was sent some years before the resident’s tenancy began, it has been helpful in understanding the context of his subsequent complaint.
When the resident first enquired about backdated communal electricity charges in December 2019, the landlord proactively supplied copies of invoices relating to electricity charges for 2018/19. It later offered him support in contacting his electricity provider and understanding bills it had provided for 2020 and 2021. This was above and beyond its obligations. It was reasonable, when responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2, for the landlord to explain that it was unable to discuss events that took place between 2001 and 2011 in detail, but nonetheless to draw conclusions from the documents supplied to it by the resident. It made appropriate reference to its tenancy agreement and the requirement for tenants to pay service charges, which included communal utilities such as electricity. Though the resident may have felt its refusal to enter into detailed discussions about historic matters was a “convenient excuse”, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to be able to discuss events for which it no longer held records, or, indeed, that occurred before the resident’s tenancy began.

Changes to warden duties

Some aspects of this complaint are discussed above and will not be duplicated. The resident referred to correspondence from the landlord in 2009/10, when (according to him) it could not produce figures for the warden salaries at Scheme A; in 2011, when it informed residents that its local authority subsidy funding had been cut by £41,000; and later in 2011, when it reduced the warden service “without discussion or agreement”. While the Ombudsman can attach limited weight to historic documents, the landlord’s letter to residents in January 2011 noted that other housing associations had reacted to their cuts by stopping all sleep-in support services, but stated “what separates [us] from other providers is our willingness to listen to our tenants and provide the services you seek”. This suggested a level of engagement with residents and awareness of their preferences. The letter also referred to the changes as “proposed” and offered to meet with residents who wished to discuss changes to services. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is therefore evidence that residents were consulted about changes to warden duties in 2011.
The resident questioned the link between the £41,000 funding cut and reduction of the warden service, noting that the support subsidy was “not for warden costs but intended to be awarded to residents on a low income”. As discussed above, there is some uncertainty as to whether the subsidy was paid to the landlord or directly to residents pre-2011, but the landlord and local authority were clear that it covered the daytime warden service. The landlord also explained the context of the changes in its initial communication, saying that it had to “make strategic decisions to manage the service in line with [its] financial capabilities”. This was a fair assessment of its role. Though it is not the role of this Service to determine the factuality of the funding cut, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided a reasonable level of information and explanation in relation to its decision making.
With regard to the resident’s complaint, this was the only aspect of the complaint that the landlord partially upheld at stage 2, having confirmed at stage 1 that delivery of the housing support service across all schemes was being considered by its resident consultative group. Its subsequent consultation with residents in September 2021 is discussed under ‘apportionment of service charges’ above. In view of the resident’s continued concerns, it was appropriate for the landlord to include possible reintroduction of a 24/7 warden service in its consultation and to provide an approximate cost for this. While the resident’s point about the expected cost being higher than that paid by other schemes, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider the level of a service charge or the level of a service charge increase. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord consulted in a reasonable way and it was appropriate for it to make decisions based on the outcome. Taking into account the full circumstances, the correspondence provided and the timescales involved, no fault has been found in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Changes to services and charges

White goods

The Ombudsman has had sight of promotional material relating to Scheme A in 2001 and correspondence from the landlord in 2003 and 2014. Though some inconsistencies are noted, a finding cannot be made in relation to historic actions and communications. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to decline to comment on previous arrangements and to confirm that the past 6 years’ service charges did not include any costs associated with white goods in individual flats. On this basis, it was appropriate for it not to reduce the service charge. It was good practice for it to give assurance that relevant costs for Scheme A were consistent with its other schemes.

Security checks

The Ombudsman has seen a letter from the landlord to residents in April 2011 which stated that, though the overnight warden service was ending, a warden would attend Scheme A each night at 8.30pm to carry out security checks. It is concerning that, according to the resident, these checks were not consistently completed and were instead taken on by residents. Unless a change in arrangement had been agreed and/or clearly communicated, the landlord should have honoured its commitment. While a finding cannot be made in relation to historic charges and agreements, the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s understandable concerns in its stage 1 response. Its statement that it could consult on reintroducing a chargeable security check service, without acknowledging residents’ efforts in maintaining security of the building or apologising for any failure/misunderstanding, was unhelpful. It did not go on to complete such a consultation, or explore this as a realistic option, until it issued its stage 2 response. It also did not address the resident’s concerns about insurance liability; even if these were unfounded, it should have satisfied itself with regard to its insurer’s requirements and given assurance that it had done so. These omissions have resulted in a finding of service failure.

Records system

The resident was concerned, based on his own experiences and his wife’s, that the records kept in relation to residents’ health and care at Scheme A were out of date. It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with its sheltered housing manager in relation to its current system, and to decline to upgrade the system based on their assessment that it was fit for purpose. At stage 2, the landlord was right to identify and correct an error in terminology. Though the resident’s objections to the lack of system upgrade are noted, it is the Ombudsman’s view that a lack of consultation and regular staff presence is not evidence of inaccurate records. The landlord had no obligation to make arrangements with third parties to access a local healthcare record system, although the resident’s suggestion was no doubt appreciated. Ultimately, the landlord confirmed to the resident that its records relating to Scheme A residents were up to date, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, no fault has been found.

Employer’s liability certificate

Although the landlord had previously displayed its employer’s liability certificate at Scheme A, there was no requirement for it to do so, as the certificate related to its responsibilities as an employer rather than as a landlord. It was therefore reasonable for it to decline to display or produce a current certificate at the resident’s request. It confirmed that its staff could access the certificate electronically, confirming the existence of a current certificate.

Health and safety representative

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request for a health and safety representative to be employed at Scheme A. At stage 1, it reassured the resident that it had put measures in place to meet its health and safety responsibilities, and at stage 2, it provided details of relevant staff and their roles. This was a satisfactory response.

Tenant representation

The Ombudsman has had sight of a letter sent by the landlord to residents in 2003, in which it referred to a recommendation by the Audit Commission that resident and tenant groups should be democratically elected. As a recommendation, there was no requirement for the landlord to comply with this, and it did not commit itself to doing so in its policies or tenancy agreement. At stage 1, it provided details of action it had taken (in 2019) in relation to tenant engagement. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it demonstrated that it had gone above and beyond in promoting engagement. It also showed openness by explaining its decision making. While its explanation for not electing its current representatives due to concerns about low voter turnout was dubious, particularly in view of the response it received to its later consultation in September 2021, overall its response to the resident’s concerns was detailed and satisfactory. It is noted that the Ombudsman has seen ample evidence of the landlord engaging with its tenants, including the resident, using a variety of methods and platforms.

Potential fire risks

When the resident expressed concern about the removal of fire safety measures at Scheme A (under-door metal strips and firebreak materials), it was appropriate for the landlord to state the legal requirements and to confirm its compliance with these. Due to a lack of records, the landlord’s position with regard to a conversation between the resident and its sheltered housing manager was reasonable, and it would not have been proportionate for it to expend further time and resources in consulting witnesses or examining documentation relating to this. The resident’s distress in relation to a missed appointment by the landlord was understandable, and the landlord rightly apologised for this (making reference to another earlier occasion when it had done so). This was appropriate, although the landlord should have checked with the resident whether he wished to rearrange the appointment. The Ombudsman has had sight of service reports relating to recent fire and security inspections and is satisfied that the landlord is following the correct procedure.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in April 2019. This was unacceptable. Though it responded separately to a number of the issues raised by the resident in his subsequent letters, it did not recognise that he asked for these to be included in his formal complaint and that an overarching response was due. By the time it issued its stage 1 response, 15 months later, the initial 3 issues raised by the resident had been addressed and he had raised 10 more. Confusion may have been caused by the wording of the complaints policy that was in place at the time, which referred to a ‘pre-complaint’ stage; this has been removed from the landlord’s current policy, and so no order has been made in relation to this. Nonetheless, the resident was clear that he wished to make a formal complaint, and was denied a formal response within the 10-day period stated in the complaints policy. The fact that some of the individual responses to elements of the resident’s complaint were sent by its complaints officer, without any reference to their role or the matter being treated as a complaint (or pre-complaint), further indicated a confused and disorganised approach.
Following intervention by this Service, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within 9 working days at stage 1 and within 27 working days (with an extension agreed with the resident) at stage 2. These timescales were reasonable. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to decline to discuss or investigate historic matters, its repeated signposting back to previous correspondence at stage 1 was unhelpful, and for clarity it should have restated its position and reasoning in full. However, in general the responses were detailed and thorough. The landlord exercised appropriate discretion in addressing points raised by the resident partway through the complaints process. It respected his wishes not to be contacted by telephone, but showed consideration by offering both an opportunity for verbal discussion, and resolution through mediation. This evidenced a meaningful attempt by the landlord to reach a resolution and to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to by an “appropriately placed” member of staff with oversight by its complaints officer, whereas stage 2 reviews are carried out by its complaints officer with oversight by management. In the resident’s case, his stage 1 complaint was responded to by the landlord’s complaints officer and his stage 2 complaint was responded to by its director of finance and resources. The resident had stated in his original complaint that since “many of the issues within my complaint relate to the recent increase in service charges … it would not be appropriate or acceptable for your current financial director to be involved in any way”. While it is generally accepted that landlords may use their resources as they see fit, the landlord should have acknowledged and accounted for any departure both from its policy, and from the resident’s wishes.
In summary, although many elements of the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were reasonable and appropriate, its delay of 15 months in providing an adequate stage 1 response – resulting in an overall period of 17 months before the stage 2 response was issued – has resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding communal caretaker costs;
2. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding alarm monitoring and warden services;
3. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding payment of a support subsidy;
4. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding apportionment of service charges for communal facilities;
5. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding staff costs;
6. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding water charges;
7. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding backdated communal electricity charges;
8. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding changes to warden duties;
9. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding changes to services and charges;
10. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries regarding potential fire risks;
11. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord gave a reasonable explanation in relation to charges for its communal caretaker and maintenance service. Given the length of time that had passed since the period referred to by the resident, and in view of the available information, it was appropriate for it to conclude that no refund was due.
The language used by the landlord to describe alarm and warden services in its annual service charge demand notice was confusing. Its responses to the resident’s queries did not fully answer the points raised and referred back to previous communications, which was unhelpful. When the landlord’s complaints officer responded to the resident, their role was not stated or explained.
The landlord appeared to give conflicting information in relation to whether residents were due a refund for a support subsidy paid to it as a grant in 2011/12. While the matter of whether a refund is due cannot be determined by the Ombudsman due to the length of time that has passed, the landlord’s responses to the resident were evasive and it unfairly accused him of making inappropriate use of its resources.
The landlord delayed in consulting residents about whether residents of other schemes should be charged for their use of communal facilities at Scheme A. It also delayed in answering the resident’s questions about recent funding of the facilities. It placed undue emphasis on usage data and did not apologise for previous miscommunications/confusion.
The landlord provided an appropriate level of information in relation to staff numbers, roles, duties and costs. It had no obligation to provide more detailed information in relation to the calculation of service charges based on the cost of individual employees.
The landlord complied with its legal responsibilities by retaining financial records for 6 years and making relevant records available for residents to view within 6 months of receiving their annual service charge demand notice. It had no obligation to provide documents relating to water charges outside these requirements and was unable to comment on historical arrangements.
The landlord offered support to the resident in relation to electricity charges. As with the water charges, it was not obliged to provide documents outside of its legal responsibilities and was unable to discuss events for which it no longer held records, or that occurred before the resident’s tenancy began.
There is evidence that the landlord consulted with residents when it previously made changes to its warden service. When informing residents of cuts to local authority funding, it explained that it had to make strategic decisions to manage services. When the resident asked for an overnight warden service to be reintroduced, it again consulted residents in a reasonable way and made decisions based on the outcome.
Though there were inconsistencies in historic communications from the landlord relating to costs/responsibilities for white goods, it confirmed that no costs had been charged to residents in the past 6 years. Its decision not to reduce the service charge was therefore reasonable.
The landlord did not fulfil its commitment to carry out security checks at Scheme A, leading residents to take on this responsibility. It stated that it could consult residents in relation to this, but did not do so. It also did not explore the resident’s understandable concerns regarding insurance liability.
The landlord took reasonable steps to satisfy itself that its records system was up to date and fit for purpose, and it reassured the resident regarding this.
There was no requirement for the landlord to display its employer’s liability certificate at Scheme A, despite it having done so previously.
The landlord provided a detailed summary of measures it had put in place in order to fulfil its health and safety responsibilities.
The landlord demonstrated that it had implemented a range of methods to engage with its tenants. It was not obliged to follow a recommendation by the Audit Commission that it had referred to in previous correspondence.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm its compliance with fire safety requirements, and to apologise for a missed appointment with the resident.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint in April 2019, and did not formally respond until 15 months later. This resulted in the complaints process taking a total of 17 months. Although the stage 1 and 2 responses were detailed and thorough, the length of delay was unacceptable.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in communication and delay in responding to his complaint.
2. Pay the resident £600, comprising:
  1. £50 for its service failure in responding to his queries regarding alarm monitoring and warden services;
  2. £50 for its service failure in responding to his queries regarding payment of a support subsidy;
  3. £50 for its service failure in responding to his queries regarding apportionment of service charges for communal facilities;
  4. £50 for its service failure in responding to his queries regarding changes to services and charges, specifically in relation to security checks;
  5. £400 for its maladministration in complaint handling.
3. Provide to the resident a clear written explanation of each current service charge item, including example charges for each category/sub-category.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its arrangements for contact with the resident in order to deliver a customer-focused service and make best use of its resources. It may wish to consider allocating him a designated point of contact and/or updating him at an agreed frequency (eg monthly), using his preferred method, regarding any new queries or complaints. It should be clear regarding what it will and will not do in order to avoid unfairly raising expectations.
It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to inform all residents – including those who may have vulnerabilities, preferences or needs in relation to how they receive communications – when it updates its policies or otherwise makes changes that may affect them.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
It is recommended that any current and future arrangements between the landlord and third party organisations are reflected in a formal contract document, which may be made available for scrutiny in accordance with the landlord’s commitments and legal requirements.
It is recommended that the landlord offers to rearrange a meeting between the resident and its technical officer in relation to any current fire safety concerns.