Notting Hill Genesis (202441945)

Background

1. On 15 February 2024, the landlord issued the resident’s service charge statement for the year ending 31 March 2022. The resident noted a £132 difference between the £300 pest control ‘core cost’ and £432 pest control ‘total’. The resident asked for invoices to support these charges. After receiving the invoices, the resident still needed an explanation of the  difference. He also asked whether the charge was for work in communal areas or in an individual flat. The landlord said the invoice was for work in an individual property. This led the resident to question why he had been charged. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 June 2024 as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident remained dissatisfied after exhausting the complaints process and referred the matter to us for investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about pest control costs in his 2021 to 2022 service charge statement.
3. We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries about pest control costs in his 2021 to 2022 service charge statement.
   2. There was maladministration by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.

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 response to the resident’s queries about pest control costs in his 2021 to 2022 service charge annual statement.

What we have not considered

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level or increase of service charges. We will also not investigate whether the charges are ‘reasonable’. If the resident wanted to pursue his concerns about whether it was reasonable for the landlord to include the disputed pest control invoice in his charges, he may wish to challenge this by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)(FTT) or the court.

What we have considered

6. The landlord issued the resident’s 2021 to 2022 service charge statement on 15 February 2024. On 1 March 2024, the resident queried a £132 difference in pest control costs and asked for supporting documents. The resident chased the landlord on 4 and 18 March 2024. The landlord initially provided incorrect information before eventually supplying the correct invoice. This caused understandable confusion and reduced the resident’s confidence in the accuracy of the information.
7. On 8 April 2024, the resident asked if the pest control works related to communal areas or an individual flat. The landlord confirmed the same day that the treatment related to an individual property. This response raised further concern for the resident about why such costs had been included in his service charges.
8. Between 9 April and 16 May 2024, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for clarification on 2 key issues. These were the £132 difference and whether it was right for the landlord to charge residents for work linked to an individual flat. The landlord did not respond. Because of this the resident raised a formal complaint on 10 June 2024.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2024. The landlord accepted there had been delays but failed to address the substance of the complaint. Instead, it proposed a meeting. The resident escalated the complaint the next day. The resident said a meeting was not needed as he had already provided sufficient information. He continued to chase for a stage 2 response throughout August and September 2024, which prolonged his uncertainty and frustration.
10. On 26 September 2024, the landlord apologised for delays. It referred to a separate surplus credit of £123.40. The landlord asked the resident to explain the £132 issue again. This showed it had not understood or recorded the original query. The resident responded on 30 September 2024. He explained the issue again and again questioned the inclusion of costs relating to an individual flat. The landlord said the charge had been coded as an “intercompany charge” and needed further investigation.
11. In its stage 2 response on 26 November 2024, the landlord said it could not trace the £132 charge. It said it believed this was a calculation error and that it would correct it in a future budget. It is positive that the landlord agreed to correct this. However, for it to take 8 months to address this issue was a failure on its part. Further, both its explanation and the timeframe for when this would happen was vague. It also did not address why it had charged the resident for works relating to an individual property.
12. Later correspondence showed continued confusion, with the landlord requesting documents that the resident had previously provided and giving inconsistent explanations.
13. It was not until 23 December 2024 that the landlord provided the resident with a response to his concerns about the queried invoice. In its correspondence on that day the landlord said the invoice did not show it was for an individual flat. It did not address why the resident had previously been advised that it was. The landlord said all resident should share the costs due to public health risks. As set out above, whether it was reasonable for the landlord to include these costs in the resident’s charges would be for the FTT. However, for it to take over 8 months for the landlord to provide its response to this element of the resident’s query represents a clear failure on its part.
14. Overall, we are not satisfied the landlord properly engaged with the queries raised. It did not respond within a reasonable timeframe. This required the resident to repeatedly chase over an extended period. The landlord did not show it had carried out a full investigation nor did it provide clear, consistent, and evidence-based explanations. It failed to maintain clear and accurate records and asked for information already given. It could not clearly explain the £132 difference. It later said it might be a calculation error but its response, and the timeline for it to correct this, was vague.
15. These failings caused the resident avoidable frustration, time and trouble in pursuing the matter, and prolonged uncertainty regarding the accuracy and fairness of his charges.
16. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident £250 compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance, where the landlord’s failure to fairly engage with the queries raised within a reasonable timeframe has caused the resident significant and unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.

How the landlord handled the complaint.

17. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 June 2024 about the landlord’s lack of response to queries about pest control costs in his 2021 to 2022 service charge statement. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 17 July 2024. This was 12 working days outside the 10‑day timescale. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation.
18. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 July 2024. The landlord was expected to acknowledge this by 26 July 2024 and provide a stage 2 response by 23 August 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the escalation. It also failed to meet the stage 2 deadline. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on 20 and 30 September and again on 11 November 2024.
19. The landlord eventually issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2024, 63 working days outside the required timeframe, and offered a further £25 compensation.
20. Overall, the landlord failed to meet complaint handling timescales. It did not acknowledge the escalation and required repeated chasing. The total of £75 compensation did not reflect the length of delay or the impact on the resident, which included frustration, inconvenience, and time and trouble.
21. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay an additional £75 compensation, bringing the total payable for its complaint handling failures to £150. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance, in circumstances where the complaint responses were delayed by weeks or months, affecting timely resolution of the dispute, and adversely affecting the resident.

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.