One Housing Group Limited (202015286)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015286

One Housing Group Limited

21 February 2023

 

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom system, its calculation and administration of the service charge, its communication about the customer service charge.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
    1. Under paragraph 42(e), the Ombudsman may not investigate 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.
    2. Under paragraph 42(g), the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
    3. Under paragraph 42(k), the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  3. There are aspects of the resident’s complaints which concern the landlord’s compliance with obligations set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985). The resident has complained about the landlord’s calculation and administration of service charges. The landlord’s compliance with its section 20 repair consultation obligations is relevant to aspects of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s repair handling.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s compliance with its obligations under the LTA 1985 is a matter of law and for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property) (“Property Tribunal”). The Ombudsman considers the Property Tribunal is better placed to make determinations that require a legal analysis of principles of law and a forensic study of evidence where the issue is the landlord’s compliance with its legal and regulatory obligations.
  5. Therefore, in this case the Ombudsman will not investigate and make a determination on the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s calculation and administration of the service charge. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it is appropriate to consider the customer service provided by the landlord in responding to and handling the communications with the resident about his concerns regarding the service charge.
  6. The evidence also indicates that initially the works on the intercom system were considered to meet the threshold to require a section 20 consultation, as required by the LTA 1985. However, after quotes were received at a later stage, it was considered that the section 20 process was no longer required, and the matter was treated as a standard repair. The Ombudsman is satisfied that it is appropriate for them to consider the customer service provided by the landlord in responding to and handling the communications with the resident about his concerns regarding the service charge and in the handling of the repair itself after the matter was no longer being treated under the section 20 process.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a block of flats. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord is not the freeholder of the block, and the superior landlord has appointed a managing agent to manage repairs.
  2. A section 20 consultation was started on the intercom changes in May 2020 by the managing agents.
  3. On 27 January 2021, the landlord issued the resident with a section 20B notice regarding the 2019/20 service charge advising him that it did not yet have the final amounts.
  4. On 6 May 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord noting that the managing company had sent him a “reduction to the service charge” for January 2021 to June 2021 and asking if he would receive a refund as this was less than the charge he paid to it.
  5. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 15 June 2021 setting out why he thought the landlord should refund him some of the service charge he had paid.
  6. On 18 June 2021, the landlord and the resident discussed outstanding arrears on the resident’s account and the resident advised the landlord that he was not willing to pay as the faulty intercom system had not been fixed. There were a number of subsequent internal emails about the issue in June and August 2021 and it was noted that a section 20 had not been issued regarding the repair, although it was not stated why.
  7. On 11 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord complaining that he had been ignored for more than two months.
  8. The landlord responded to the resident’s query about service charges on 23 August 2021 explaining how service charge cycles were calculated. The resident responded on 23 August 2021 setting out further queries about the service charge and whether he would receive a refund.
  9. On 6 September 2021, the resident complained about the landlord via this service.
  10. The landlord sought to contact the resident by telephone to discuss his complaint on 9 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint in writing on 10 September 2021.
  11. The landlord was notified on 15 September 2021 that the managing agent of the flat would be handed over to another managing agent on 30 September 2021.
  12. On 16 September 2021 there were further communications between the landlord and the managing agent about progressing the replacement of the door entry system, following the resident’s formal complaint about the intercom system not working. On 23 September 2021 this was followed up by communications with the managing agent about quotes.
  13. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 20 September 2021. The landlord explained that the door entry system was obsolete and had failed on the whole building. The only resolution was to replace it. Currently a concierge buzzed guests in. Many quotes had been obtained and, due to the amounts, a section 20 consultation was needed. It advised the resident that it had asked for quotes from the managing agent and would review them. It would then instruct the managing agent to proceed with the section 20 process. It noted that there had been a lack of clarity in the level of communication. It explained that it was reliant on working with the managing agent to progress the repair to the intercom. It offered the resident £50 compensation regarding its communication. In regard to the service charges, it set out an explanation for the revised 2021 estimate.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2021. He complained that the managing agent had contacted the landlord about the intercom in the first month of 2021, but it had done nothing. The resident complained that the landlord had “bouncy” him back to the managing agent. He also complained that he had made his first query about the service charges on 5 May 2021 and the landlord had responded on 15 June 2021 asking for more information, but he had never heard again from the landlord representative. A different landlord representative contacted him on 23 August 2021 with an explanation. He stated that he found the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation insulting. He stated that he was “onboard” regarding the landlord’s explanation about the 2021/22 service charge but queried 2020/21. He also queried the landlord’s use of estimated bills and whether the landlord was correctly calculating the charges taking into account the managing agent’s charges.
  15. On 27 September 2021, the landlord gave the resident a section 20B notice and provided information about his service charge. It stated that it would provide final accounts when they were ready and that it would write to him again by 31 December 2021 to let him know of its progress with the accounts.
  16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two on 28 September 2021.
  17. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 October 2021. The landlord apologised for the length of time the resident had been waiting for the replacement of the intercom. It observed that it was working to progress the works in line with the section 20 consultation and it hoped to have the works completed by the end of the year. Regarding its communication levels with the resident, it increased its stage one compensation offer of £50 to £100 and it further explained that it was expanding its teams and taking other steps to improve its communications. With respect to the service charge, the landlord stated that it expected to send out final accounts soon.
  18. On 14 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that service costs were being reviewed and audited and the service charge booklet would be provided shortly.
  19. On 21 January 2022 the landlord communicated to the resident that the managing agents had found a solution to the problem and parts had been ordered. There were Covid related delays, but the managing agent was continuing to chase the contractors. It told the resident that it would notify him of a confirmed date when there was an estimated arrivals time for the parts. During February the managing agent encountered unexpected issues progressing the matter.
  20. On 2 February 2022 the landlord advised this service that 2019/20 and 2020/21 accounts would be provided to the resident no later than 31 March 2022. It further advised that the repairs were the responsibility of the freeholder’s managing agent and the latest position was that they were waiting for the manufacturer to finish a panel.
  21. On 22 February 2022 the landlord provided a Service Charge Statement to the resident.
  22. On unspecified dates the landlord sent the resident a service charge booklet for the periods from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2022, 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Service charge

  1. As set out above, the Ombudsman will not make a decision regarding the calculation and administration of the service charges. However, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s customer service in responding to and handling communications with the resident about his concerns regarding the service charge.
  2. The evidence indicates that the resident communicated with the landlord on a number of occasions about the service charges. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have responded to the resident’s initial queries more promptly. It appears that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s emails of 6 May, 15 June 2021 and 11 August 2021 until 23 August 2021. Although the resident responded that day reiterating his complaint, the landlord did not treat the matter as a complaint until the issue was raised via this Service on 6 September 2021.
  3. The Ombudsman is satisfied that once the matter has been raised as a formal complaint, the landlord responded and communicated with the resident in a reasonable manner. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 10 September 2021 and issued a stage one complaint response on 20 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage two of the complaint process on 28 September 2021 and a second stage complaint response was issued on 26 October 2021. This was reasonable.
  4. The landlord has acknowledged that there were failings in its communication with the resident and offered compensation of £100 in its second complaint response. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable offer of compensation – the failings were relatively minor and the landlord ultimately did communicate adequately with the resident. The landlord also indicated that it is implementing organisational and process changes to improve its communication with tenants. The Ombudsman therefore finds that, while there was a service failing, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this complaint.

Repairs

  1. Under clause 5(d) of the lease with the resident, the landlord has an obligation to maintain and repair the communal entry phone system. However, clause 5.5.1 excludes the landlord’s liability for any “failure or interruption” in the entry phone system. In this case, the landlord has continually indicated that its position was that it was working for the entry phone system to be repaired. Having taken this position, the Ombudsman would therefore expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to ensure this repair is completed in a timely and reasonable timeframe.
  2. In this case, the matter was complicated by the fact that the landlord does not own the freehold of the block of flats in which the property is located. Rather, the landlord itself has a headlease with the freeholder of the property. A managing agent was appointed to manage repairs, including the entry phone system. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to arrange the repair of the entry phone system itself. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to liaise with the managing agent to progress the works.
  3. It appears that the repairs fell outside the section 20 consultation sometime after the second stage complaint response which was sent in October 2021. The evidence indicates that further quotes were obtained which fell under the threshold requiring a section 20 consultation.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration at the time taken to repair the intercom system, particularly in light of the COVID pandemic. However, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that there were failings by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the intercom system. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence indicates that the landlord took reasonable steps during this period to progress the repairs and communicated on a number of occasions with the managing agent. It appears that the managing agent encountered some issues in securing parts. The landlord communicated this to the resident. The Ombudsman understands that throughout the period the resident had access to a portal provided by the managing agent that provided updates on the progress of the matter and was used to arrange access.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident with respect to service failings in its handling of communications about the resident’s concerns about service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs to the intercom system.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial queries about the service charges in a prompt manner. The landlord has acknowledged this and made an offer of £100 compensation, which the Ombudsman is satisfied is reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, once the matter fell outside the section 20 process, the landlord took reasonable steps to liaise with the managing agent to progress the repairs. It appears that the managing agent encountered some issues in securing parts. The landlord communicated this to the resident.