London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202436718)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2024 about the method used to calculate service charges for the year ending 31 March 2024. He said that the landlord used a hybrid approach that did not comply with standard accounting practices and he had been overcharged because of this. He contacted our service in December 2024 because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wanted the landlord to reconsider the methodology it used in calculating the service charges.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Accounting method of service charges.
   2. Provision of information about service charges.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. The service charge accounting methods are outside jurisdiction for this service to consider.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s provision of information about service charges.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

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

The landlord’s accounting method of service charges

6. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2024 about the method used to calculate service charges for the year ending 31 March 2024. We are unable to determine whether the accounting method used in the service charge calculations resulted in fair or accurate costs. In its responses, the landlord has advised that the accounting method could be challenged at First Tier Tribunal. Therefore, we will not consider the reasonableness of the accounting practice, or whether it has led to miscalculations or an unfair charge. This issue is better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal or court.

The landlord’s provision of information about service charges

7. The resident requested a detailed service charge breakdown on 8 March 2024 after receiving notice of a 39% increase for 2024/2025. He also requested a meeting to discuss his concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these requests. However, the detail that the resident responded with within his complaint suggest that he may have received further information, but this is not evidenced. There is no evidence the landlord met with the resident to discuss his concerns. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide the information requested and clarify its position.
8. On 7 October 2024, the resident complained that the calculation method for service charges did not comply with standard accounting practices and resulted in unfair charges. He provided significant detail about the issues and said he had been overcharged £706.27 because of the accounting method used by the landlord. We will not comment on the accuracy of this figure, but we will consider the landlord’s response.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2024. It explained the method used to calculate service charges and said it had sought advice from a firm of specialist service charge accountants. It also said that it would not amend current practices. However, the response did not address the resident’s concerns that he had been overcharged £706.27. This was a missed opportunity to provide information about the overcharges highlighted.
10. The resident escalated the complaint on 5 November 2024. He said he was disappointed that the landlord would not amend current practices. He said that by refusing to correct issues, the landlord was continuing to overcharge residents. He asked for the overcharge to be credited back to his account.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 November 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns but did not provide a full response. It made no comment on the overcharge figure or request to credit his account. It said the service team would review the stage 1 response and would contact the resident directly. There is no evidence that this contact occurred.
12. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the overcharge. There is no evidence the service charge team provided further information as promised. The landlord’s failure to provide the requested information and complete agreed actions meant the resident has not received a full and final response to his concerns almost 2 years later.

Complaint Handling

13. The landlord’s complaint policy requires acknowledgement of stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It requires stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 10 working days.
14. The resident raised his complaint on 7 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 9 October 2024 which met the policy. The stage 1 response on 31 October 2024, however, did not meet the expected timescale. There was also no acknowledgement of the delay.
15. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 14 November 2024 which did not meet the policy timescale. The stage 2 response on 26 November 2024 met the policy timescale. The response did not acknowledge the delay.
16. The stage 2 response said the service charge team would review the stage 1 response. It said the landlord had raised a new case and that a service charge team member would contact the resident. It therefore did not offer the resident the landlord’s final position on the matter complained about.
17. The stage 2 response is the landlord’s final opportunity to consider the issues brought by the resident, the decisions made at stage one, and any final thoughts on whether further steps are required to put things right. The Complaint Handling Code (The Code) explains that it must involve all staff needed to make the final decision and should issue a full response. Therefore, the stage 2 response provided by the landlord was inappropriate and rather than bringing the process to an end, sought to add another stage.
18. When questioned further, the landlord said that the purpose of its stage 2 response was solely to review its initial response and complaint handling. This was another missed opportunity to recognise that it had not properly addressed the resident’s complaint. We have seen no evidence that any further response was issued.
19. The landlord did not adhere to its own complaint-handling policy and did not recognise delays. The stage 2 response did not address all issues, did not involve all necessary staff, and did not act as a full and final response as required by the Code. There is no evidence that this has been rectified since. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to provide a full and final response in relation to the concerns raised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.