Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202114079)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114079

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

19 October 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for service charges to be removed and concerns raised about the level and increase of the service charges.
    2. Queries about service charges and estate management.
    3. The related complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase.
  3. Therefore, the complaint set out above at 1(a) is outside the scope of this Service’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, as it concerns the level and reasonableness of service charges or liability to pay service charges in respect of the property. These types of complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) so the resident may need to consider making a claim via the FTT.

Background

  1. The tenancy started on 7 January 2008. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 4-bedroom house described by the parties as a “general needs” property.
  2. The landlord is a Housing Association.
  3. The resident’s husband has physical disabilities. The landlord has recorded the resident’s (or her household’s) vulnerabilities as ‘long term illness.’
  4. In her complaints raised with the landlord, the resident said she had been disputing the accuracy of the service charges for many years since moving into the property. As there is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord regarding service charges that exhausted its complaints procedure, prior to the 21 October 2020 complaint, the focus of this review will be on the landlord’s handling of the complaint from 3 July 2020 when the resident raised queries regarding service charges, this is within a reasonable timeframe of her formal complaint. Any reference to a timeframe prior to this date is for context only.

Summary of events

  1. On 3 and 20 July 2020, the resident queried her service charge with her Neighbourhood Manager (NM). She informed them that charges relating to   communal, street lighting and stairlift maintenance and repairs should not be payable and communal light repair on 2016/17 statement should not have been charged. She also queried the fairness of other service charges for example bulk refuse.
  2. On 21 October 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the lack of any update received from her NM to her queries raised about amounts it was charging through service charges. The resident asked the landlord to amend the service charges so she only paid charges that related to her property, and to refund overcharges.
  3. On 16 November 2020, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. Within its response it said:
    1. Regarding the service charge for communal and street lighting and the cost of the communal light repair shown in the 2016/17 statement, it was currently liaising with its supplier regarding these issues. The landlord said because this may take: “a long time to investigate,” she could withhold payment for communal lighting until this had been resolved. It explained that if it was found she was liable for costs, she would need to pay these.
    2. Regarding the stair lift charge, it explained that its 2020 formal notice of charge letter advised of the cost of servicing the stair-lift and quoted the wording from its letter. It explained the service contract it currently had included the stair lift in her property, therefore this charge applied to her.
  4. The landlord advised the resident that if she was dissatisfied with its response, she could request a review by 27 November 2020.
  5. On 1 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising that because it was still investigating her charges for communal and street lighting, she was unhappy that the landlord told her she had until 27 November 2020 to request a review.
  6. On 3 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident was unhappy with its response. It explained that in order to determine whether she was required to contribute towards the communal electricity it needed to look into this further and investigate how the electricity supply was set up on her scheme. However, it said if it had not resolved the issues by 31 December 2020, it could review her complaint.
  7. On 24 December 2020, the resident sent a number of emails to the landlord regarding charges for street lighting outside the shared owner blocks, street lighting repairs and the stairs lift charge.
  8. Between 12 February and 28 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 5 occasions to request an update on its investigation into the outstanding stage 1 complaints. She said charges she was disputing remained on the 2021/22 estimated charges that she had recently received from the landlord. The resident also queried the charges for communal grounds maintenance and advice from its grounds maintenance team that they were no longer maintaining the land the railway side of the Close.
  9. The landlord provided responses on 26 February, 17 March and 22 April 2021 in which it:
    1. Acknowledged that as a social housing tenant, the electricity charge for communal lighting should not apply to her property.
    2. Told the resident on 2 occasions that she could opt out of this service charge for repair and maintenance of her stair lift if she preferred to use her own contractor and it advised her to sign the opt out form if she chose to do this,
    3. Said the communal electricity charge would be removed so only estate lighting would remain.
    4. Said it had contacted its electrical team about visiting the scheme to investigate the communal power supply for the estate.
    5. Said its ground maintenance team had confirmed that they had been maintaining third party land the railway side of the Close in error but confirmed residents had not been charged for this.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 April 2021 asking if it had heard back from the electrical team regarding the split on the electric meter and stating the service charges team was not aware of the removal of the communal electricity charges.
  11. The landlord’s internal communications dated 28 April 2021 show that the resident asked it to raise a complaint in relation to the service provided by the landlord. The landlord’s notes state the resident said she had been disputing the service charges for many years, but no one had given her answers. She said there had been a deterioration in the cleaning and grounds maintenance, and 12 years after installing a stair lift it wanted to charge her for repairs. She referred again to her complaint about charges for street lighting and asked who gave permission for CCTV on the communal bins.
  12. On 7 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that the communal electricity charge had been removed from her account and reiterated it would remove the stair lift charges once she had signed and sent back the opt out form. Regarding grounds maintenance, it reiterated the explanation provided on 22 April 2021 and confirmed its ground maintenance contractor were no longer maintaining this bit of land. The landlord also said that its electrical team were scheduled to attend on 6 May 2021 and it would chase them for an update on the connection of the meters. It also said in answer to her query regarding differed charges, blocks had additional charges like cleaning and repairs, but items including grounds maintenance and estate lighting were charged to the estate which was classed as one scheme.
  13. On 13 May 2021, the landlord told the resident it was sorry she was not happy with its stage 1 complaint and provided her with a review request form to complete and return by 26 May 2021.
  14. On 24 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating her queries regarding charges for street lighting, ground maintenance and stair lift repair and maintenance had not been addressed.
  15. On the same date the resident sent her completed review panel request form to the landlord reiterating her service charge complaint had still not been fully answered.
  16. On 26 May 2021, the landlord told the resident that the stage 2 panel review meeting would be held on 28 July 2021.
  17. On 1 June 2021, the landlord told the resident that any service charge refund due would be applied to 2020/2021 year end statement that would be sent to her at the end of September 2021. It also said regarding:
    1. Street lighting, its electrical team attended the scheme but said it needed to “go over the accounts and check how the electricity had been split.” It would provide her with an update by 21 June 2021.
    2. Grounds maintenance, it reiterated its position given its 22 April 2022 response and said no refund was due.
    3. Stairlift repair and maintenance, in 2018 it had consulted residents about this charge and reiterated that she could sign and return the form to opt out of paying this charge.
  18. On 21 June 2021, the landlord advised:
    1. It had now looked into the electricity of her scheme. It said it would now refund the 2016/17 repair to street lighting. It would also apply credits for street lighting to all residents dating back to 2014/15.
    2. The electrician has confirmed that each block on the scheme had a separate supply and the estate lighting came from one supply. It said electricity charges from 2017/18 had been charged correctly and was shared equally between all the residents on the estate.
  19. On 7 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to dispute its calculation of the refund for street lighting.
  20. On 28 July 2021, the landlord held the stage 2 panel review meeting and on 11 August 2021, the landlord provided a final response which included an action plan. Within its response it stated:
    1. Street lighting on her Close appeared to be on third party land. However, it had not yet had the electrician’s report back regarding whether its communal supply powers those lights. It would therefore clarify whether the communal power supply for the estate powers the streetlights before the entrance to her Close by 25 August 2021.
    2. Regarding street lighting repairs, it had checked back several years and found no street lighting repairs charged to the rented residents’ service charges. It said 6 jobs had been raised in the last 12 months and gave details of these. The landlord said one of these could relate to a streetlight outside of its land as such it would make sure this cost was not passed to residents via the service charges in the 2020/2021 year-end account.
    3. Regarding ownership of land beside railway track, it had found a demarcation agreement which leads it to believe it should be maintaining that strip of land the railway side of the Close. It would instruct its estate services team to attend to bring this strip up to standard (at no additional cost to residents). It said target action date 11 September 2021. It would include it in future grounds maintenance. It offered the resident £25 in compensation for bringing this to its attention.
    4. Communal supply for street lighting, it had agreed to refund the proportion of the communal electricity charges for the street lighting to social housing residents. Due to limitations set by law it could only backdate this 6 years, which would be to 2015/2016. It was completing the calculations and would include the credits in the 2020/2021 year-end account. It was sorry it was unable to backdate further but it would like to offer her £25 compensation goodwill gesture to thank her for bringing this to its attention.
    5. Its stairlift servicing and repair charge policy allows it to recover the costs of servicing and maintaining stair lifts installed in its homes that it is responsible for. However, if the stair lift was installed and paid for under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), residents could “opt out” of its servicing charge. It had not been able to find a record of who funded the resident’s stair lift, but it had made enquiries regarding ownership with the local authority and it would provide an update by 25 August 2021.
    6. Bulk refuse and the bike shed, the resident requested it consider changing the bike shed to another bin store to prevent bulk refuse being left. It was investigating possibility of converting the bike shed to an additional bin store. However, it would update her on this by 11 September 2021.
    7. CCTV cameras, it had raised this with the relevant teams and they’re still looking into this. It apologised for not yet having a response and said it would get back to her by 25 August 2021 with its findings.
  21. The landlord stated the panel had also noted her concerns raised about communication with it and how long it had taken for her service charge queries to be resolved. It acknowledged the service provided was not to the expected standard, apologised for this and offered her £50 as a discretionary payment.

Post final complaints response.

  1. On 26 August 2021, the landlord told the resident the local authority had confirmed they did not fund her stair lift via a DFG, therefore she could not opt out of the charge to service and repair the equipment. The landlord also said it would provide an update on whether its communal supply powers streetlights on third party land 11 September 2021.
  2. On 3 October 2021, the resident disputed its position in regard to funding the stair lift and asked for an update on the outstanding issues.
  3. On 4 October 2021, the landlord said repairs to the stairlift were applicable after the warranty expired. In regard to street lighting, it had raised another order to check whether its communal supply feeds the streetlight on third party land. It explained it still was unable to confirm who installed CCTV and that it had not had an update regarding the issue with bulk refuse left at the bike shed. The landlord advised it would get back to her by 18 October 2021.
  4. On 24 January 2022, the resident chased the landlord for its response in regard to the outstanding issues.
  5. The landlord provided further responses on 4 and 16 March and 1 April 2022 in which it confirmed there were 5 electricity meters on the site. It said one for the street lighting and one each for the four blocks of flats. The street lighting costs were charged to all properties. It confirmed all the refunds of service charges that were due to the resident including in relation to communal lighting, the street light repair and also grounds maintenance as these charges had been incorrectly charged to just general needs properties when it should have been split across all units.
  6. On 23 April 2022, the landlord offered the resident £250 for the delays in getting her queries resolved.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s ‘recoverable service charge’ policy states general needs tenants’ service charges will not include the cost of maintaining the fabric of the building including communal areas nor insuring the building. The cost of this is met by the landlord from the rent paid.
  2. This policy also states leaseholders will pay all the costs including maintenance and upkeep of the fabric of the building, service charges are likely to be for communal services. and shared owners an including maintenance and upkeep for the whole house and service charges are likely to be for communal external areas and services and building insurance.
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Under its complaints resolution policy the landlord is required to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It says a resident may request, within 10 working days of receiving its formal complaint, a review of its stage 1 decision whereby it will arrange a review and respond with their decision within 10 working days.
  4. Its complaints policy also states it manages service charge complaints through its Service Charge Dispute Resolution (SCDR) policy. This is a 2-stage process and its SCDR policy states if the resident disagrees with the decision at stage 2, they can apply to the FTT.

Assessment and findings

Queries about service charges and estate management

  1. The focus of the resident’s complaint concerns her liability to pay service charges and the level and reasonableness of service charges. As stated in the jurisdiction section above, these complaints are outside the jurisdiction of this Service. This Service is however able to investigate complaints which relate to the landlord’s handling of service charge queries therefore, this is considered below as well as the landlord’s response to queries raised about estate management issues.
  2. In her original complaint the resident complained about the service charges for communal and street lighting, a communal light repair and stair lift repair and maintenance. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to respond to any queries raised about service charges within a reasonable timeframe and where raised as a formal complaint, to investigate and resolve the queries within the timescales stated within its complaints policy. However, for the majority of the complaints raised by the resident, the landlord failed to do this with answers to some queries still outstanding at the end of the complaints process. The landlord did respond to the majority of the resident’s communications raised throughout the 10 month timeframe investigated. However, at times it gave contradictory and unclear advice with its position on some issues changing.
  3. The resident’s property is on a Close that has not been adopted by the local authority and consequently, the landlord charges for street lighting on the Close and associated repairs through the service charges. Further as the resident’s scheme is made up of a combination of social housing properties and shared ownership blocks, the landlord also charges for communal lighting through the service charge.
  4. In regard to charges for communal lighting, it took the landlord from when the resident first raised this issue in July 2020, until 26 February 2021 for it to acknowledge that as a social housing tenant, the electricity charge for communal lighting should not apply to her property. The landlord’s conclusion appears to be in line with its service charge policy which states ‘general needs’ tenants will not pay for costs of maintaining the communal areas of buildings. It took the landlord a further 6 months until its final response, to confirm that this charge would be removed and a refund going back 6 years to 2015/2016, would be provided.
  5. Whilst in its stage 1 response the landlord explained to the resident that it was liaising with its supplier and that it would take: “a long time to investigate” her queries, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to understand how communal lighting on the estate was being charged between tenants and shared owners,  or if there was doubt,  for it to undertake a prompt investigation in order to explain the charges and adjust them where relevant. As such, the length taken by the landlord to resolve the resident’s query regarding communal lighting, was unreasonable.
  6. Regarding the charge for street lighting repair on 2016/17 statement which the resident disputed at the same time. Again, there was a lengthy delay by the landlord before it confirmed to her on 21 June 2021 that a refund of this service charge was due to her. This was because the repair had been to a streetlight on a section of her Close that it confirmed was on third party land. However, the landlord’s position seem to change in the final response as whilst it reiterated its findings that this street light was on third party land, its comments about having checked back several years and finding no street lighting repairs had been charged to residents’ service charges, appears to contradict its previous advice that it would apply a refund in respect of the street lighting repair on the 2016/17 summary of costs. The unclear and contradictory advice provided in relation to this aspect of the complaint, was unreasonable and would have caused confusion to the resident.
  7. The question of whether the communal power supply for the estate also powered the streetlights on the third party land was not resolved at the review stage as the landlord said it had not had the electrician’s report back yet. Although the landlord’s action plan included within the final response stated that it would provide an update by 25 August 2021, it is clear from correspondence seen by this Service that the landlord failed to meet this timescale.
  8. In its next response to the resident dated 4 October 2021, the landlord said it was still looking into this issue. Whilst this Service is unable to investigate the landlord’s actions post final response, the landlord is expected to follow through with the actions promised in the action plan provide in its final response. The repeated failure by the landlord to address this query by the dates advised to the resident is unacceptable and is evidence of a shortfall in service provided by the landlord.
  9. In regard to the service charge for repair and maintenance of the resident’s stair lift, in its stage 1 response the landlord explained that because it was responsible for repairing and maintaining this equipment, this was payable through the service charge of which residents had been notified of and also consulted about in 2018. This response was reasonable as the evidence provided to this Service supports this. However, because the resident then disputed its position on ownership of the lift, the landlord enquired with the local authority to check if they had funded the stair lift through a DFG. This action was appropriate, as in this circumstance, the landlord told the resident that she could opt out of the charge. However, prior to receiving clarification from the local authority, on 26 February 2021 the landlord told the resident that she could opt out of this service charge if she preferred to use her own contractor to service and maintain the equipment and advised her to sign the opt out form if she chose to do this. It repeated this position on at least 2 further occasions on 22 April and 1 June 2021. Therefore, its advice to the resident on 26 August 2021 that she could not opt out of this service charge after receiving advice from the local authority that they had not funded the lift, was at odds with its previous responses wherein it unequivocally told the resident she could opt out of the charge. Therefore, the landlord’s change of position on this issue without explanation, would have caused confusion. From correspondence exchanged between the parties post final response, it appears that on 4 October 2021 and 16 March 2022, the landlord reverted to its former position that the resident could opt out of paying the charge. However, the failure to provide clear and consistent advice provided around this concern was a failing.
  10. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident raised additional issues and complaints which the landlord considered in its stage 2 review response. These concerns relating to the ground maintenance and the bulk refuse rubbish removal service charges and a query relating to CCTV installed within the scheme.
  11. Regarding the grounds maintenance charges, the landlord initially told the resident that the grounds maintenance contractor would no longer be maintaining the strip of land the railway side of the Close as this was third party land. However, in its final response it said that after finding a demarcation agreement, it recognised that it did own this bit of land and therefore it would instruct its grounds maintenance to bring this strip of land up to standard. Whilst it was right that the landlord informed the resident of the implications of the demarcation agreement located by the landlord, the change in position would have caused confusion to the resident. It is unclear why this document was not consulted prior to providing its initial response and indicates it missed an opportunity to provide the correct position earlier on.
  12. In her communications with the landlord, the resident also raised a concern that, as a social housing tenant, she should be paying less for grounds maintenance than shared owners to reflect the limited communal areas that needed maintaining near the general needs houses compared with a greater number of communal areas surrounding the shared owner blocks. In a response dated 7 May 2021 the landlord responded by confirming that ground maintenance charges were shared across all units in the scheme. Whilst this issue was not mentioned in the landlord’s final response, subsequent correspondence exchanged between the parties post final response seen by this Service shows that on 4 March 2022 the landlord confirmed grounds maintenance charges had been charged to just social housing tenants when it should have been split across all units. At the same time the landlord confirmed the amount of refund due and said this would be applied to the revised 2020/2021 year-end account. The confirmation by the landlord at this stage that a refund was due in relation to this charge, shows the landlord missed an opportunity to properly investigate and resolve this issue when the resident raised this during the complaints process.
  13. Regarding ownership of the 2 CCTV cameras overlooking the bin store/ bike shed, the resident first queried this in her complaint dated 28 April 2021. In its final response it said it was still looking into the ownership of these and its action plan stated that it would provide an answer to this by 25 August 2021. However, the landlord then told the resident on 26 August 2021 it would provide a response by 11 September 2021 however it failed to do so. After further contact from the resident on 3 October 2021 and 24 January 2022, it addressed her concern on 16 March 2022 by explaining that it had not installed the CCTV and confirming that it would write to residents to ensure they were complying with its policy on installation of CCTV. As such the landlord’s failure to address this concern within the original timescale stated in its final response is evidence of the landlord not doing what it said it would do.
  14. The landlord promptly explained that the bulk refuge charge applied to all residents. However, regarding the resident’s request to convert the bike shed to an additional bin store to deter residents from fly tipping, in its final response the landlord promised to provide an update to the resident by 11 September 2021, however, it failed to do so and communications between the parties post final response indicate the landlord only confirmed it would take some action on 16 March 2022 when it told the resident it would initially close off the bike shed.
  15. In summary, whilst the landlord provided responses to the majority of the resident’s queries, its failure to address some key complaints during the complaints process and at times the lack of updates provided on the progress of its investigations within the timescales it gave to the resident, was unreasonable. Further, inconsistency within its responses regarding some issues indicates a failure to properly investigate at the earliest opportunity or a lack of a ‘joined up approach’ across teams at the landlord.  This lack of clarity would have caused confusion.
  16. The resident also told this Service that some refunds promised were not provided. Whilst this Service is unable to verify this from the evidence provided, it is reasonable to include an order below for the landlord to provide clear evidence to the resident of the service charge refunds promised including in relation to communal lighting, street lighting and street lighting repair in relation to third party land and grounds maintenance.
  17. In its final response the landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation based on £50 for the delay in resolving her service charge queries and £50 for bringing issues concerning the communal supply for street lighting and ownership of the land beside the railway track, to its attention. On balance, its offer of compensation is insufficient to put right the multiple failings identified in this report. It is noted that in its 13 April 2022 response, the landlord offered the resident a further £250 in compensation for the delays in getting her queries resolved. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this indicates the landlord recognised and sought to remedy the further delay taken to resolve outstanding issues post final response, as this amount was not offered at stage 2 or soon after, it has not been considered as part of the redress offered during the complaint process.
  18. Based on the failings identified during this assessment as detailed above, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s queries about service charges and estate management.

Complaint handling.

  1. As the resident’s stage 1 complaint related to service charges, according to its SCDR policy, the landlord was required to follow this policy rather than its complaint policy. Its SCDR policy stated that if the resident is dissatisfied with its stage 2 review, the landlord will signpost them to the FTT which, as mentioned in the jurisdiction section above, is the appropriate body to consider complaints regarding the level and reasonableness of service charges as well as liability to pay service charges. As this constitutes a large part of the resident’s complaint, having decided to follow its complaints process, it was important for the landlord to still signpost the resident, in its communications and complaint responses, to the FTT in the event she wanted to escalate it to this body, however, there is no evidence that it did. Whilst the landlord may have sent the resident information about the FTT with its estimate of charges and summary of costs, this failure to signpost during the complaints process in the resident’s case, is a failing by the landlord and it is reasonable to conclude that this caused delay in resolving these aspects of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The resident raised her formal complaint on 21 October 2020 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 November 2020 demonstrating it did not adhere to the 10 day timescale in its complaint process. It also did not address her complaint about the service charge for communal lighting and related repair cost, although it did explain it had been unable to complete its investigation into this. The landlord did not give a timescale for providing a response which would have been appropriate in the circumstances, only telling the resident that it would take a long time to investigate these matters.
  3. Whilst its complaints process states a resident can request a review of its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its response, as this aspect was still outstanding, on 3 December 2020, it told the resident that it would extend the deadline to 31 December 2020. There is no evidence that the resident then explicitly requested a review. However, the landlord had still not provided any answer to the outstanding issue. As such, understandably, the resident continued to contact the landlord seeking an answer to her outstanding stage 1 complaint, which the landlord eventually provided on 4 March 2021. Throughout this timeframe the resident raised additional queries both in relation to her original complaint and regarding new issues which led her to raise another complaint on 28 April 2021 due to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues raised.   
  4. The landlord then sent the resident a review form to complete indicating acceptance of her review request. Given its extended delay with providing the outcome of aspects of its stage 1 investigation, this was appropriate as the purpose of a stage 2 review is for the landlord to consider if the matter was properly investigated and the right outcome reached at stage 1. However, in regard to the new issues raised, in accordance with its own complaints procedure, the landlord was required to log these as a new complaint at stage 1. Investigating a complaint and providing a response at stage 1 is a key aspect of complaint handling as it allows the landlord to demonstrate it has heard and understood the resident’s concerns. By responding to the resident’s new concerns at stage 2 of its complaints procedure rather than at stage 1, it prevented the resident the opportunity to escalate this complaint to stage 2 if she was unhappy with its response. This was a significant failing by the landlord. On balance, another consequence of doing this was many of the issues were unresolved and still outstanding at the date of the landlord’s final response, as previously mentioned.
  5. The resident sent in her completed review form on 24 May 2021 and the landlord confirmed on 26 May 2021 that her panel review meeting would be held on 28 July 2021. The landlord issued its final response on 11 August 2021. The landlord’s complaints process does not state a timescale for when the panel review meeting will take place, only that it aims to hold review meetings each month. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code however states the landlord must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. As the landlord’s stage 2 review process spanned more than 2 months with the review response issued approximately 50 working days after the resident’s review request, this was issued well outside the timeframe stated in the Code.
  6. Therefore delays by the landlord in providing its complaints responses and updates to outstanding complaints were the main reason for the landlords’ complaint process lasting nearly 10 months which is unreasonably prolonged.  Such failings demonstrate there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the related complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(e), the request for service charges to be removed and concerns raised about the level and increase of the service charges are outside the scope of this Service’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s queries about service charges and estate management.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

  1. These types of complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the FTT.
  2. The length of time taken by the landlord to address many of the resident’s concerns was unreasonable and it took the landlord several months following its final response to advise the resident of the outcome of its investigation in relation to some matters. It did not provide the resident with regular updates of the progress on its investigation without her first raising the matter. There was also little clarity and inconsistency in its advice given within different responses from the landlord in relation to some issues.
  3. Aspects of the resident’s stage 1 complaint were not resolved at the date of the landlords stage 1 response and its failure to follow up on this within a reasonable timeframe led to a prolonged complaint process. The landlord also failed to log new complaints raised at stage 1 rather it addressed these at stage 2, denying the resident an opportunity to request a review of these issues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within four weeks:
  1. As well as the £100 offered during the complaints process, pays the resident a further £600 in compensation comprising:
  1. £350 for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble due to failings identified when handling the resident’s queries and complaints.
  2. £250 for complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already provided the resident with the £250.00 offered post final response, it may deduct this amount from the additional compensation awarded above.

  1. Since the merger, if it has not already done so, to include a timeframe for its panel review meeting in its complaints process.
  2. Provide clear evidence to the resident of the service charge refunds promised including in relation to communal lighting, street lighting and the street light repair and grounds maintenance.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
  1. Consider if the refunds it agreed to provide the resident are applicable to other social housings tenants on the scheme and take steps to action this if this if relevant.