One Housing Group Limited (202014714)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014714

One Housing Group Limited

29 March 2022

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:
1. response to the resident’s request for information relating to the service charge accounts.
2. communication regarding the service charge accounts, and its handling of the formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, complaint 1a falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. At the heart of the resident’s complaint is his concern that the landlord has failed to provide information relating to the service charge period of 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020.
Under section 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), a tenant or leaseholder, can request their landlord to provide a summary of service charge costs. A landlord must ensure that it provides the relevant information within one month, or within six months of the year end, whichever is later.
While the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s response to his request are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the landlord has failed to comply with the statutory requirements – this is a matter which falls outside of our jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” A court or the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) would be best placed to determine whether the landlord has failed to comply with its statutory requirements; and if so, what an appropriate remedy would be in the circumstances.
While the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the landlord has failed to comply with its obligations under section 21 and 22 of the Act, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord responded after the resident raised concerns about its handling of the matter. The circumstances relating to the accounts and the provision of information have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a block of flats.
On 4 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to request invoices relating to the service charge period of 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. The resident chased a response on 18 October, and subsequently asked to raise a formal complaint given the lack of response.
The landlord responded to the resident on 10 November and apologised for the delay in responding to the previous emails. It advised that it was not in a position to provide the invoices which the resident had requested as it had identified anomalies in the 2019/20 actualised accounts. The landlord said that as such, it was undertaking a full review which it anticipated would take “no more than three weeks”. It added that it would notify the resident of the outcome, any proposed actions to rectify the errors and actions to prevent something similar happen in the future. The landlord explained that until the investigations were concluded, a deficit of £236.26 would remain on the resident’s account; however, the Accounts Advisor had been advised not to pursue payment in the circumstances.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2020 to request an update. On 30 December, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that:
1. It had undertaken a review of the annual account which highlighted that the service charge information which had been provided to the resident previously was “not accurate”.
2. Upon a further review, it was evident that mistakes had been made, and it wished to apologise for this.
3. It was working to rectify the issue, but it was anticipated to take “some time”. A further update would be provided within four weeks’ time.
4. To address the mistake, it was reviewing all the services and invoices relating to the property and would produce a new set of accounts “as soon as possible”. It would be working with external auditors to validate the accounts, but it would not be passing on the costs of the validation to residents.
5. It wished to apologise for the inconvenience that may be caused, and wanted to assure the resident that it was doing all it could to correct the error, and to ensure that something similar did not happen in the future.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s correspondence the following day and both parties continued to exchange correspondence at the beginning of 2021. On 7 January, the landlord advised that it had raised the resident’s concerns as a complaint. However, it advised that it would put the complaint “on hold” while the relevant area was looking into the matter further. It advised that it had noted to contact the resident on 1 February, by which time it would have the outcome of the review available.
On 1 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that:
1. It wished to apologise for failing to provide the information the resident had requested under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (section 22).
2. It believed it had a valid reason for not complying – that being that the review of the 2019/2020 end of year accounts identified that the figures that the resident had been sent were incorrect.
3. The landlord reiterated that it had appointed an external auditor to examine the revised accounts; however, it was unable to provide specific timescales regarding the re-issue of the revised audited accounts.
4. If the correct service charge turned out to be more than was quoted in September 2021, residents would not be charged for the difference. If it had charged more than it should have, it would ensure that a credit was issued to residents’ accounts.
On 3 February, the resident wrote to the landlord to express dissatisfaction and frustration with the lack of progress. He added that the landlord’s inability to provide any timescales for when the revised accounts would be provided was equally frustrating. The resident asked for his concerns to be dealt with as a formal complaint and attached a log of the communication which had been exchanged since 4 October 2020, when he had initially contacted the landlord about the matter.
The resident chased a response on 21 February, as he had yet to receive a response or acknowledgement. The landlord responded the following day. It acknowledged that it had taken “some time” to resolve the issue, and advised that it had appointed a new member to the team to help with response times
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 March confirming once again that he did wish for his concerns to be treated as a formal complaint. The resident also added that it had been approximately six months since his first request for information, and no progress had been made.
The landlord subsequently issued a stage one response to the complaint on 24 March. It said that while it noted the resident’s comments about the time that it was taking to review the accounts, it was unable to provide a timescale as to when the revie would be completed. However, the complaint had been upheld as it was yet to provide him with the details of what he had asked for under section 22. The consideration of the complaint at stage one of the process had come to an end. If the resident was dissatisfied with the response, he could reply to explain why, and what he was seeking as the outcome to the complaint. The matter would then be escalated to a senior member of staff at the next stage of the complaints procedure.
The resident replied to the landlord on 31 March, and asked to escalate his complaint. He acknowledged that steps were being taken to address the issue; however, he found it frustrating that no timescales could be provided. In addition, the resident said that the landlord had not acknowledged that:
1. It had failed to respond to enquiries in a timely manner.
2. It had not progressed his concerns as a formal complaint, despite numerous requests.
The resident also advised that he had found the landlord’s communication set up confusing, and that each time he sent an email, a new reference number was generated. To put things right, the resident said that he wished for all of his complaint points to be addressed, for the landlord to issue a report into what exactly caused the error with the accounts, confirmation from senior management that any deficit found on review would not be passed on to residents. The resident said that he also wanted reassurance that the review would encompass the entirety of the estate, and not just his block.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 5 May 2021. Within this, it said:
1. Once it had a clear indication from the auditors of when the revised accounts would be ready, it would be writing to all affected residents to confirm the date that they would be issued. It was at the final stage of the process, so anticipated that this would be “within the next few weeks”.
2. It would ensure that a clear explanation was provided for any changes.
3. The accounts which had been sent in September 2020 unfortunately included the end of year summary figures for 18/19, and not 19/20, in error. For that reason, they were incorrect.
4. The revised accounts would be based on costs incurred in the year 19/20, and it would provide copies of invoices and supporting documents alongside the revised accounts once they were ready to share.
5. It could confirm that the accounts for the whole estate had been taken into consideration under the review.
6. It wished to apologise for the service the resident had received, and that is request for the matter to be treated as a complaint was not escalated in a timely manner. At the time of the resident’s enquiries, its resources had been stretched, and this led to delays in its communication.
7. The complaint had been upheld, and the resident could refer the matter to the Ombudsman for further consideration if he remained unhappy.
The resident subsequently contacted the Ombudsman in July 2021. He advised that the revised accounts had yet to be provided, and he had not received any further communication from the landlord. The resident has informed this Service that the accounts were later provided in December 2021.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Complaints policy states – “a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by us, our staff or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group”.
The Complaints policy states that once a complaint is received, it will be acknowledged before being investigated. In some instances, where it is considered that the complaint may be resolved without the need to log a formal complaint. The policy explains further that in such instances, it will agree using early resolution with the resident first, and if the resident is unhappy with the outcome, they may still ask for the complaint to be dealt with at stage one of its procedure.
With regards to timescales for responses, the Complaints policy provides that stage one complaint responses will be issued within 10 working days from receipt. Where this is not possible, the landlord will provide an explanation for the delay and agree an extension. The extension should not exceed a further 10 days “without good reason”.
If a resident requests to escalate their complaint, a stage two response should be issued within 20 working days from the date of the request, unless there are “exceptional circumstances”, or a later date is agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s Compensation policy states that it would consider paying compensation to its residents in a number of circumstances, including when it has “been negligent in its service delivery”, has failed to meet service targets, or the complainant has suffered loss or inconvenience.
The landlord’s Compensation procedure provides further guidance on how compensation payments should be awarded. It does not contain a tariff; however, it does provide that where a resident has experienced inconvenience, it will use its discretion to offer a goodwill payment between £25 and £250. The procedure also provides some examples of instances within which compensation may be awarded.

Assessment and findings

When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it appropriately acknowledged that it had failed to respond to his enquiries in a timely manner. The landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience that had been caused as a result, and advised that at the time of his enquiries, it had been short-staffed, which impacted its ability to respond.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and to provide an explanation for the poor service that had been provided. However, from the evidence that is available, it is not clear why the landlord did not propose a remedy when responding to the resident’s complaint. Given the landlord’s Compensation policy as detailed above, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident a remedy to reflect the inconvenience he had been caused as a result of the failings in the service that had been provided.
When deciding on the level of compensation that should be awarded, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s Compensation procedure, in addition to our own guidance on remedies. The Ombudsman has also considered the inconvenience that was caused to the resident up until the stage two response was issued; and given consideration to the fact that the resident did not receive the accounts until December 2021 – over a year after his first request – and that he had advised in July 2021 that he had not received any further updates from the landlord. The failure to keep the resident updated after the stage two response was issued was a further failing by the landlord, and demonstrates that it had not learnt from the conclusions that had been reached when it investigated the complaint.
With regards to the complaint handling, it is noted that the landlord had initially considered that it would be more appropriate to let the service area look into the matter further. This was not unreasonable given the provision for “early resolution” as set out in the landlord’s Complaints policy. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that this had been agreed with the resident – which was a departure from the Complaints policy.
In addition, when putting the complaint “on hold”, the landlord’s advised that it would make contact with the resident after the service area review had been completed on 1 February. The evidence does not show that the landlord did follow-up, and the resident was left to chase the matter. This was inappropriate, and a failing in the circumstances.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, it did appropriately acknowledge that it had failed to escalate the complaint appropriately. However, the landlord’s response does not demonstrate that it had fully understood how its handling of the complaint had impacted the resident – and that it had further inconvenienced him after he had already raised concerns about a poor level of customer service.
Given the circumstances of the complaint, and that the landlord had departed from its Complaints policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider offering the resident some compensation for the inconvenience that he had been caused. That the landlord did not was a further failing, and a missed opportunity to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s communication regarding the service charge accounts, and its handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately acknowledged failings and shortcomings in its handling of the matter, and in its complaint handling. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident and did not offer any remedy aimed at putting right any of the inconvenience that had been caused to him as a result.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failing identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £250, comprised of:
  1. £150 for inconvenience caused by poor communication.
  2. £100 for inconvenience caused by the complaint handling.