Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Newlon Housing Trust (202311126)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311126

Newlon Housing Trust

11 November 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about service charges, and regarding the progress of cladding work.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of a 1-bed flat since 2018.
  2. In February 2022 the resident first asked the landlord for detailed information regarding a Section 20 (S20) notice he had received, the reasoning and associated service charges, plus an update on cladding work.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 4 April 2023. He said he had not received the information requested in February 2022.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 23 May 2023 when it apologised for not responding to the initial enquiry. It confirmed a newsletter and follow up letter had been sent to him and confirmed a resident meeting held on 20 April 2023 had provided details regarding the cladding work. It apologised for the poor communication, trouble and inconvenience caused and offered a £50 voucher as compensation.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 May 2023. He confirmed he had not received the information requested and referred to the lack of progress in relation to the cladding work which in turn was affecting insurance costs. To remedy the situation, the resident said he was looking to get the cladding underway, the service charges under control, and asked to see the insurance cost per flat that the landlord paid.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 27 June 2023 which reaffirmed the response from stage 1. The landlord acknowledged the information presented to the resident following his enquiries had not met his satisfaction, and that there was ongoing communication with the service charge department. The landlord repeated its compensation offer of a £50 voucher.
  7. In contact with the resident in November 2024, he told this Service the issues raised in this complaint remain unresolved. He said he had not received the information requested and despite going to resident meetings and receiving newsletters, the cladding work had not progressed, and the residents were faced with continuous delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), 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. This report will therefore not determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable but will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to visit the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) website for advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.
  3. This Service is aware of other complaints raised by the resident with the landlord (reference 387167 and 410096). For clarity, this investigation will only focus on the complaint referenced 383495. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to the other complaints, he should contact the landlord and follow the complaint process. Alternatively, if he feels the complaint process has been exhausted in full, he can ask this Service for an independent investigation.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about service charges, and regarding the progress of cladding work

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy states it should provide clear information about a charge that is payable, explain the level of cost, why charges may increase/decrease, and should provide homeowners with a statement of account each year comparing the actual cost to the original budget. It states service charge queries should be responded to within 2 to 10 days or 28 days if complex. The policy confirms the resident’s right to contact the First Tier Tribunal to determine liability for payment of charges.
  2. The landlord’s Section 20 process states all comments received from residents that relate to overall works should be saved on the system, so concerns/issues can be addressed within 2 to 10 day timescales.
  3. The resident states he received a S20 consultation letter from the landlord on 11 February 2022. This related to proposed cladding work to the block of flats in which he was a leaseholder. On 17 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord for the full history and reasonings relating to the consultation, the subsequent service charges and all the information relating to the cladding work including a start date.
  4. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident following his request, and on 7 April 2022 he had to chase the landlord for a response. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the second request from the resident. A year later, on 3 March 2023 and again on 4 April 2023 the resident had to invest more time and effort contacting the landlord. He said he had not received a response to his request the previous year. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to respond to the initial enquiry in February 2022 and the subsequent chases in April 2022, and March and April 2023. This was both a communication failure and a failure to respond to service charge enquiries and S20 queries within the policy timescales.
  5. Due to the lack of response from the landlord, the resident submitted a complaint in April 2023. Within its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed a newsletter had been sent to the resident following the latest resident meeting which should have answered his concerns. We have seen the newsletter, which was a general update to the residents affected by the consultation exercise and did not address the specific request from the resident. The landlord also said a meeting had been held on 20 April 2023 where the cladding was discussed. No further information or update was supplied in the complaint response.
  6. It was unreasonable of the landlord to assume, without confirmation from the resident, that the newsletter and resident meeting had answered his request and resolved his complaint. This is likely to have added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s communication and contributed to the escalation of his complaint.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 May 2023 and continued to ask for the original information requested, an update on the cladding work, and additional information relating to insurance costs. Although the landlord provided its final complaint response on 27 June 2023, there is no evidence to suggest the information requested by the resident was provided. This was unreasonable.
  8. In summary the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about service charges and regarding the progress of cladding work. The landlord failed to comply with its policies and did not provide the specific information requested by the resident within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord offered £50 compensation but did not demonstrate any learning to prevent a recurrence of the failures. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay additional compensation. This is for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings but has failed to put things right and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states the resident does not have to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such. A stage 1 complaint should be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 2 working days of the request and responded to within 20 working days. If an extension is required, this will be communicated to the resident. The policy states complaints regarding service charges can be logged if there has been a failure to provide information.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 4 April 2023. This was following a request for information in February 2022, and 3 further chases to the landlord through to April 2023.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and apologised for a lack of response to his previous requests. It told him his request had been sent to the special project team to respond to, but there is no evidence the landlord logged this contact as a complaint. This was unreasonable and raises concern with the landlord’s process for recognising a complaint as highlighted in its policy.
  4. The landlord did not contact the resident until 12 April 2023. It confirmed it would ask for a complaint to be logged and would request the information required to provide a full response. The delay in communication and the delay in logging the complaint was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord formally acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 21 April 2023, 12 days after it was made and not in line with the policy. The landlord said it would respond within 10 working days, but did not confirm the complaint details. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord is expected to confirm its understanding of the complaint and the desired outcome – there is no evidence the landlord confirmed this with the resident at this time. This was unreasonable and led to further contact from the resident to confirm which complaint the acknowledgement related to.
  6. On 9 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise it was still gathering information and was unable to respond. It said it would aim to respond within a further 10 working days. The landlord’s internal records suggest it was unclear what the S20 consultation was in connection with. Consequently, it needed to confirm this with the resident however it was not until 22 May 2023 that the parties spoke. The lack of the landlord’s awareness added to the delay in the complaint response – this was unreasonable as the landlord should have had this information available to it and should not have had to ask the resident.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 May 2023, 32 working days from submission. This exceeded the policy timescale and the extension timeframe. Although the landlord communicated the delay to the resident, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for this in the response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise the inconvenience the delay may have caused the resident.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 May 2023. He said insurance costs had been applied without him having the ability to scrutinise them because his request in February 2022 was ignored. He asked for the information requested on the cladding which he stated had caused an increase in insurance costs.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 30 May 2023 – this was not in line with the policy timescale. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 27 June 2023, 24 working days after it was requested and outside of the policy timescale, albeit only marginally..
  10. The landlord’s final complaint response repeated the information from the stage 1 complaint. It did not offer any new information or explanation and confirmed the stage 1 response correctly responded to the complaint. It offered the £50 for the communication failure as per its previous stage 1 offer. We note the landlord’s response letter still referred to the Designated Person stage of the complaint process. This democratic filter was removed from the process in October 2022 and should not be included.
  11. In summary the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, which caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the matter, and frustration at the lack of full response. Considering the failures identified in this report and in line with the remedies guidance of this Service, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation. This is based on a finding of maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about service charges, and regarding the progress of cladding work.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident which should address the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £350 compensation, made up of the following:
      1. £50 as per the offer made within the final complaint response.
      2. £200 for the impact of the prolonged delay in providing the resident with the information he requested.
      3. £100 for the impact of the complaint handling failures.
      4. The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not in the form of vouchers.
    3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence that the above payments have been made.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Contact the resident to confirm what information requested within this complaint is still outstanding.
    2. Within 6 weeks of this contact, provide the relevant information to the resident.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with the evidence to confirm the above orders have been met within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. If not already done so, the landlord should review all complaint correspondence and remove any reference to the Designated Person stage of the complaint process.