New Outlook Housing Association Limited (202310341)

Background

1. The resident complained that the levels of support staff was not consistent or regular enough to justify the service charge she paid. She sought a refund of past payments and agreement of a reduction to the service charge, as well as an explanation of how the landlord would address her concerns about staff levels.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords:

1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the delivery of services and the service charges.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the delivery of services and the service charges.
5. Service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns raised about service charges and staff levels

6. We did not investigate the service charges themselves, as the amount charged is outside of our jurisdiction. However, we reviewed the landlord’s responses in relation to staffing levels and service delivery and found that it delivered the service in line with its obligations. Therefore, we found no maladministration.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to follow its own complaints process when responding to the resident’s complaint initially, causing delay. The stage 2 response was provided on time and addressed 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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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

What we have not investigated

8. Part of the resident’s complaint is regarding the cost of the service charges paid. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says:
9. “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”
10. As such, we have not investigated this part of the complaint.
11. If the resident wishes to challenge the level of service charge she could seek help through the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service or seek independent legal advice.

What we have investigated

12. The resident raised concerns that the service charge she paid was meant to fund the provision of staff at the centre for 12 hours per day. She said the services promised within the tenancy agreement were not being consistently provided by the landlord.
13. In response, the landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns before completing a review and issuing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It agreed that staff levels had not always been consistent in recent years but services were still provided thanks to support from its head office, the neighbouring centre and the installation of a warden care system. It also explained there were delays in hiring new staff due to the landlord seeking applicants that had the necessary skills to properly support the residents.
14. The notes provided by the landlord following the in-person meetings before and after the complaint responses show that it checked the resident’s understanding of what had been said and reached agreement that the services funded by the service charge had all been provided.

15. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints in writing within 3 working days and provide a full written response within 20 working days. The landlord had an appeals process, which the resident should have been told about when receiving the complaint response.
16. The resident raised the complaint on 11 April 2023 by email. We have not been shown evidence that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint in writing, which deviates from its published policy.
17. Emails were shared between the landlord and the resident’s representative to arrange a face-to-face meeting to discuss the complaint. This was a positive step by the landlord to make sure it understood the complaint and allowed the resident to voice their concerns.
18. The landlord provided its complaint response (stage 1) on 31 May 2023. No explanation has been shared with us to confirm why it took 33 working days to respond. The landlord shared internal emails that show calls with the resident’s representative and face to face contact with the resident had occurred, but none of these explain why the landlord needed longer to respond to the complaint.
19. In addition, the response addresses the residents concerns about the services provided at the centre and how these relate to the service charges paid. However, no information was shared on how the resident could appeal the response. This is a further deviation from the landlord’s policy.
20. There is a gap in the evidence presented before communication with the resident begins again on 21 September 2023. Following this, the landlord asks the resident to submit their complaint in writing and it would then be reviewed. The resulting complaint was identical to the initial complaint, as the resident maintained that they were unhappy about the same things.
21. The landlord treated this new contact as a stage 2 complaint and provided its response within 20 working days. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration the resident felt and explained how its service provision had changed over time while maintaining the agreed services to the resident.
22. The delayed first response to the complaint and the lack of signposting to the appeals process delayed the resident’s ability to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord demonstrated it followed good working practices in relation to its record keeping.

Communication

24. The landlord’s complaint response highlighted the changes it had made in how it provided its promised services over the past few years. It also shared a breakdown of the costs associated with those services and how the service charge increased each year during the period in question. The resident’s complaint indicated that they were not aware of how the landlord made use of the money. The landlord could use this complaint as an opportunity to ensure residents have clear information on how the service charges are calculated and used, for transparency.