Orbit Group Limited (202120407)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120407

Orbit Group Limited

30 June 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

The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal services provided.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the service charges.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. The lease, which had had begun on 20 September 2017, was assigned to him on 11 October 2019. The flat was situated in a block of approximately four to six flats which formed part of an estate. This investigation of the resident’s complaint will refer to complaints made by the resident’s neighbours in the same block.

Legal and policy framework

The resident’s lease provided as follows:
1. The resident was liable to pay a “fair and reasonable proportion” for the services incurred for the building where the resident’s flat was situated and a “fair and reasonable proportion” for the services incurred for the common parts of the estate where the building was situated, such as cleaning and garden maintenance.
2. Subject to payment of service charges by the resident, the landlord’s obligations included maintaining and repairing the common parts, including water apparatus and keeping the common parts lit.
3. The service charges estimate would be calculated prior to the service charge year to cover the landlord’s costs incurred in connection with the repair, management, maintenance, and provision of services for the building and the estate. The landlord would calculated the actual charges “as soon as practicable” after the end of each service charge accounting year. The accounting ended on 31 March of each year.
The landlord’s estate policy stated as follows:
1. Estate services were committed to providing “high quality, clean, green and safe estates”.
2. The “open, communal and common areas” were to be maintained in accordance with the landlord’s “customer promise” and its drive to deliver excellence.
3. The team provided a range of services to ensure a living environment its residents could “be proud to call home”. A procedure was in place to ensure that services were delivered within allocated budgets ensuring its communal areas were well maintained and safe.
4. It would work collaboratively with the service charge team to ensure that accurate service charge budgets were set up, monitored and finalised each year for gardening and cleaning services on each estate.
5. It would complete a set number of quality inspections per month to monitor the condition of its communal areas.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure, where it responds to complaints at Stage 1 within 10 working days, and at Stage 2 within 20 working days.

Chronology

The landlord provided this Service with an undated service charge statement for 2019-20 in relation to the estate. It included a low-cost item for grounds maintenance with a small deficit “not budgeted for however services required”. The landlord also provided a revised version without the charges for grounds maintenance. Both showed a deficit of £357.77.
On 27 October 2020, the landlord wrote to a neighbour of the resident’s (“B”) stating that it was undertaking a Stage 2 review of her complaint. She replied on the same day, copying in the resident, that the cleaners had not carried out cleaning or checked the bin area, even though they had completed a form stating they had done so. She requested a timeframe for resolution as the issue had been ongoing since April 2020 and there were concerns about costs. The landlord noted the complaint was about or involved service charges.
The landlord sent the final response to the complaint to B on 6 November 2020. The covering email and not the letter was provided to this Service.
B wrote on 6 November 2020 stating that photographs provided by the landlord to show cleaning had taken place were not of their property. The landlord replied on 10 November 2020 that the photos were relevant as they showed the “wider estates” which contributed to the estate costs. It had asked the contractors to take photos of all areas in the future. B requested evidence relating to their building. B replied, copying in the resident and other neighbours, requesting photos of their block which the landlord was not able to provide,
On 19 November 2020, B wrote that there had been a water leak, copying in the resident. The relevant water utility company had issued a statutory notice on the landlord weeks prior. B asked when the landlord intended to carry out the repair.
The landlord replied on 19 November 2020, copying in the resident as follows:
1. It did not have pictures of the area directly outside their property.
2. It asked the residents to cease carrying out the maintenance as it masked what was to be done.
3. The landlord had checked the service charges and they were correct.
4. That was its final response.
5. The defect liability period expired on 10 April 2018 and the repair for the leak was first raised on 11 April 2018.
6. The attending operative claimed that the fault was due to the construction. A job “recall” had been raised on 16 July 2018 and was completed on 26 September 2018. It had raised a further repair and escalated this to the area manager (presumably of the contractors).
7. It provided points of contact regarding the leak repair.
On 19 November 2020, B wrote again, copying in the resident and other neighbours, asking for evidence regarding the block costs for the last three years, rather than the estate costs. She asked for confirmation that the landlord would not charge for the repair of the leak given it had not been repaired correctly, and the damage had been caused by construction. She asked for the matter to continue in a “group setting”.
On 19 November 2020, the landlord wrote stating that the defects period had started on 12 April 2017 and ended on 11 April 2019. The following day, it offered a conference call to the “group” of leaseholders to discuss the service charges. It would resolve the leak.
There followed a correspondence where B, copying in the resident, chased the repairs to the leak and the landlord stated it was chasing its contractors and would provide detail of the repair.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord passed on an update from its sub-contractor as follows:
1. The operative was due to re-attend the following day with the “correct fittings” in order to re-establish the water supply to the bin store.
2. The water supply was only for the outside tap located in the bin store and did not affect the water supply to the flats.
3. Further remedial works might be required.
There followed further emails with B chasing the landlord, with a copy to the resident, and the landlord stating it was chasing the contractors. On 25 January 2021, the landlord explained to the “group” that delays were due to the restrictions of the then pandemic and its contractors were focusing on essential works. The repairs had been recently completed. However, the supply had not been reinstated. It would provide updates each Friday afternoon until the matter had come to a conclusion.
B wrote on 29 January 2021 that the landlord had not updated her as promised. She understood that the repair was not a priority but there had been a lack of communication.
The landlord wrote to B on 30 January 2021, copying in the resident, that the contractors and their area manager would be attending the following week. It wrote again on 3 February 2021 stating that all leaks had been identified and repaired with final works the following day.
B requested confirmation on 4 February 2021 that “we” would not be charged for the works. The landlord replied the next day that it would provide an update the following week and confirmed that it would not be recovering the charges, as had been previously discussed.
The landlord wrote to the leaseholders of the block on 19 February 2021 with a final “additional” review as a “collective response” as follows:
1. The bin store tap/water supply had been completed and the landlord had agreed to absorb all associated costs. The tap was for the use by the contractors.
2. There was a one-year defect liability period which the landlord agreed with the developer after which claims should be submitted to NHBC (National Home Builders Council).
3. Lighting repairs were not covered within the defect liability or NHBC. The landlord was entitled to recover maintenance costs under the lease by way of the service charges. It referred to the relevant clauses in the lease.
4. It apologised that a grounds maintenance service was not provided, which was an oversight by the landlord. It would be included as of 5 January 2021 on a fortnightly service. It would “periodically quality monitor” the service going forward and invited feedback.
5. It expected the cleaning service to improve. It would again “periodically quality monitor” this service.
6. It would review the specific costs allocated to the block to ensure they were correct.
7. It was collating the costings referring to the estate but this would take “some time. This would be formalised in the end of year accounts. The recently released budgets for 2021/22 were being reviewed.
The resident wrote on 3 August 2021 that though the decision to remove charges was reached in February 2021, the charges were still showing on its accounts, including the management of the building. Some of the repairs works had not been resolved, and it appeared they had been charged again for issues “that were not present”, for example lighting repairs. He suggested a meeting.
There was an unexplained gap in the evidence.
On 3 November 2021 and 28 November 2021, another neighbour wrote to the landlord, referring to a meeting that took place on 6 or 8 August 2021 and chasing the repair to the landing window, describing the adverse impact on the temperature of the building. The landlord did not provide a record of that meeting.
On the same day, the resident chased the landlord for the outcomes of the meeting of August 2021. The landlord replied to both saying it would get back to them.
On 11 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. There had been no progress since the meeting in August 2021.
2. He was making a formal complaint, “of their formal complaints meeting which was a review of their complaints” letter dated in April 2020.
3. He set out a summary of what was discussed as follows:
  1. A landing fire window was stuck open, which had been the case “for some years”. It made the communal and private hallways “extremely cold”, impacting on the resident’s comfort levels in their homes and raising the energy costs. It was discussed during the meeting in August 2021.
  2. It asked whether the landlord would pay for increased energy costs.
4. Landscaping to the rear of the property referred to on 18 March 2021. A section of turf had died off due to being “infested with bugs”. The residents maintained the grounds due to the landlord not “managing the property correctly” for four years. The leaseholders were told to cease maintenance of the garden as the landlord would instruct landscape contractors to carry out the maintenance and resolve the turf issue. Since April 2021, the grounds had been “an eyesore” with bare soil. It was raised again on 8 August 2021. They had not been able to enjoy the garden throughout the summer.
5. The resident was awaiting a breakdown of “deficit” charges dating back to April 2018-March 2019. He disputed the services had been “poor or non-existent”, there had been no grounds maintenance. Repairs should have been covered by the defect period. Fees for this period should be charged to the occupants six months after the year end. He had only purchased the property on 11 October 2019.
6. It was agreed during the meeting (on 6 August 2021) this would be resolved but it was still showing in his account. He referred to an email from February 2021 that costs should be credited for the connection and repairs to the bin store tap.
7. The landlord had stated it would pursue NHBC for this as the defect period was one year.
8. The properties were sold with a two-year guarantee from the building contractor.
9. The landlord had promised him a breakdown of bills and credits applied to accounts.
10. The landlord had not provided evidence to justify the fees, including cleaning contracts, grounds maintenance charges, or repair bills.
11. Service charges had increased “significantly” yet little or no further works had taken place. The landlord had said it would investigate and provide evidence.
12. On 1 November 2021, only the emergency hallway lighting was operational. He had not been consulted or was notified that the checks were taking place once a month. He asked whether this would result in an increase in service charges.
There was a further exchange between the parties chasing updates and the landlord sending ‘holding’ emails.
The landlord wrote on 10 December 2021 stating the complaint was at Stage 1 and offered to resolve the matter.
On 10 December 2021, the resident replied, reporting that the only progress the landlord had made was that it had contracted a different gardening service, though there had been no changes to the treatments to the lawn, a new set of cleaners, the water supply in the bin store had been reinstated, and a hole in the roof fixed. He was awaiting the credits.
The landlord replied on 14 December 2021, referring to the resident having escalated the complaint. Its letter was headed “complaint review” and set out the resident’s email of 11 November 2021 and as follows:
1. There had been a number of delays in providing a satisfactory response.
2. The repairs to the landing fire window were completed on 13 December 2021.
3. The landlord was working with it contractors to bring the landscaping back to an acceptable standard. It would not recover the costs of rectifying through the service charge, given the area was not being maintained previously.
4. It had credited £174 for the water leak charged in the 2018/19 service charge accounts.
5. It had also considered the deficit in the current period. The resident would be liable for the deficit in the 2018/19 financial year. However, as his complaint had been outstanding for some time, it had credited the amount of the deficit of £425.44 in its entirety and credited his account.
6. A breakdown of the 2019/20 service charge accounts showing all transactions for the estate, block, and internal core area, together with commentary to these transactions to detail what each charge covered. It had reviewed the accuracy of the apportionment of the grounds maintenance and cleaning costs. While the contractors had undertaken the works, it had credited the charges as a resolution.
7. It attached a revised service charge statement for 2019-20 to show it had reversed the original deficit of £673.28 and added a revised deficit of £357.77.
8. It was required to formally consult in relation to new charges and for contracts for longer than 12 months, if they were more than £100 per year or if works cost over £250. It explained about the monthly servicing of the emergency lighting. The service regime had been unchanged for a number of years.
9. The landlord offered £250 compensation for the delay in its response.
10. There was no reference to the resident’s right to refer his complaint to this Service.
On 6 December 2021, the resident informed this Service that the complaints response did not address the communal hall window. He said the issue had been raised three years previously.

Assessment and findings

The evidence showed that correspondence from B intended to involve the group of neighbours from the block including the resident. While the landlord’s correspondence was with B, she replied copying in the resident. The “additional” response to B of 19 February 2020 was addressed to the resident and the group. The resident also made reference to his complaint from April 2020. His own complaint of 11 November 2021 referred to “we” namely his co-leaseholders. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that, while this was not formally a group complaint, the resident considered it to be so and that his complaint began in April 2020. The evidence indicated that this was also the landlord’s stance. This investigation has therefore been taken this into account and investigated the complaints accordingly.

Scope

The final response of a previous complaint regarding service charges of 6 November 2020 appeared to address grounds maintenance and cleaning. However, it was also subject to a fresh complaint. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will investigate the complaint regarding those issues but limit its investigation of the service charge complaint from November 2020.
The Ombudsman does not investigate the level or reasonableness of service charges but it will consider the landlord’s response to a resident’s requests for information. It is open to the resident to refer any issues regarding level or reasonableness of service charges to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord, in addition to its statutory obligations pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to address a reasonable level of queries and to provide information, as well as review the charges in the face of a challenge. Recourse to the tribunal should be as a final resort.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal services provided.

There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns about the cleaning and the grounds maintenance. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord relied on photographs taken by its contractors of other parts of the estate and that there was no evidence that it had inspected and monitored the cleaning in accordance with its promises and standards set out in its policies. Given the resident had raised the issues in April 2020, that was unreasonable.
The landlord assured the resident that “cleaning services would improve”. It did not explain how, but it did promise to monitor the services. By December 2021, the landlord had resolved the complaint by contracting new cleaners and by crediting all the charges for all works in relation to 2019-20. However, there was a delay, given the issue about cleaning had been ongoing for at least a year, and the landlord’s assurances regarding monitoring the performance of its contractors. Moreover, the cleaning issues continued until a date after August 2021 and December 2021. In the circumstances, the landlord ought to review the charges for that period and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard. However, if the resident remained unhappy about the new contractors, he would have to raise this separately.
There was no dispute that there had been no grounds maintenance until January 2021. The resident reported that the grounds remained in a poor state as at November 2021. The landlord accepted this required rectification. The evidence showed it would address its condition. It was reasonable not to pass on the costs of rectification to the resident which in the view of the Ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord not to have charged for maintenance until the date and, again, the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
There was an unreasonable and unexplained delay to the repair to the window from prior to August 2021 to December 2021. The resident reported that this impacted on the temperature of the hall and his property. The evidence showed other residents also reported a similar issue. There was no evidence that the landlord addressed it until November/December 2021, which was unreasonable.
There were delays to the repair to the leak, the reasons for which it only belatedly explained, which was unsatisfactory. However, the explanation itself was reasonable and the resident accepted this. The resident experienced some frustration in chasing the landlord. While the landlord reasonably made a plan in relation to updating the resident, it failed to do so on the initial occasion. While the process took three months to resolve, the landlord assured the resident early on that it would not be passing on the costs, the issue itself did not affect the water supply, the tap was to assist the cleaning and grounds maintenance staff and was external to the flat. In addition, the landlord did not pass the costs on to the resident. In the circumstances, while the communication was erratic, the Ombudsman does not find service failure in that regard.
However, while not clear for how long, there were unexplained delays in relation to resolving the estate issues and that of the window. The landlord largely addressed the issue of costs. This principally affected areas external to the flat rather than the flat itself. However, it impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of the property and caused frustration while seeking a resolution. The landlord did not live up to its policy promises “to deliver excellence”, achieve “high quality…estates” and to ensure a living environment that its residents could “be proud to call home”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the service charges.

The Ombudsman notes that the resident requested details for the block and not the estate charges. The resident was liable for the reasonable proportion of the costs for the building and for the estate in relation to cleaning and grounds maintenance service under the lease, therefore it was reasonable of the landlord to address the costs in that way. It was reasonable that the landlord offered a conference call and a meeting to discuss the service charges.
The landlord reasonably and appropriately explained the requirements to consult over service charges. It was also reasonable for the landlord to pass on the charges for the lighting repairs. There was no evidence that the repairs were required due to a defect in the construction and therefore would be claimable either under the developer’s warranty or NHBC. The landlord was entitled to recover the costs under the terms of the lease. However, if it transpired, as the resident indicated on 11 November 2021, that repairs did not take place, the landlord should review the charges.
It would be reasonable to expect that, given the terms of the lease and the landlord’s policy, the landlord would be reviewing the annual costs after the end of the financial year, so that it should review the costs for 2018-2019 in the following months after April 2019, the 2019-2020 costs after April 2020 and the 2020-2021 after April 2021, while calculating the estimates for each year prior to the start of the following service charge year. In the circumstances, the delay in addressing the resident’s queries about his 2018-19 and 2019-20 in 2021 was unreasonable, but not significantly so. Given there was no dispute there were no grounds maintenance until January 2021 “due to an oversight”, it is concerning any costs were passed onto the resident prior to January 2021. While it was reasonable that the landlord had agreed to remove the charges for the leak repairs in February 2021, there was an unreasonable delay before they were rectified, in particular as the landlord did not provide a timescale.
In terms of the resident’s complaint that charges were increasing, it is too soon determine the landlord’s position on the ongoing service charges for the year 2021-2022 as final calculations would have been carried out after April 2022.
It would have been inappropriate if the landlord had included the costs of the leak in the service charges, if they had fallen within the defect period and were due to a defect. It defended its position by quoting a defect period it later said was incorrect and which it corrected again in February 2021. It was not clear which was correct, which was, in itself, unsatisfactory. Presumably the charges would be added to the service charge account and a claim submitted to NHBC. While the landlord’s position was not clear, whether obliged to do so or not, it agreed to remove the charges in or prior to February 2021. However, it did not credit the charges until December 2021, which was an unreasonable delay.
In the normal course of events, a leaseholder becomes responsible for service charges on the date when the lease is transferred to them, even if the costs were incurred prior to their occupancy. This is addressed by arrangements between buyer and seller, by, for example, there being a retention of sale funds pending the outcome of service charge calculation. The landlord would not be involved in this process, it invoices whoever is the leaseholder at the date of the demand or invoice. The resident indicated that the landlord and resident had reached an agreement. There were no notes of the agreement, however, again, the landlord resolved this and the complaint by crediting removing the deficit for 2018/9. This was a reasonable exercise of its discretion.
While there were positives steps taken by the landlord, as highlighted in this report, the Ombudsman finds service failure given the delays in addressing the service charge adjustments, without providing a timescale and an explanation and in particular in the light of its policy assurances of setting up accurate budgets.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The trajectory of the complaint was not clear. This was not assisted by the landlord not using consistent reference numbering throughout the complaint process. The resident referred to having made a complaint in April 2020. The landlord did not provide the initial stages of that complaint to this Service. While there was enough information to investigate the complaint, this was not satisfactory. There was a final response to B’s complaint on 6 November 2020, followed by an “additional review” of 19 February 2021, which was described as a “collective response”. It was not clear whether this was treated as a group complaint. However, the resident and his neighbours, including potentially the resident’s email of 11 November 2021, appear to have acted collectively, whether by design or not. The resident described his complaint of 11 November 2021 as a complaint about the April 2020 complaint. The landlord then treated this as an escalation. Effectively, the landlord had fast tracked the complaint of 11 November 2021 to the second stage. While not good practice, as it removes the resident’s entitlement to request a review of the complaint, in these particular circumstances it was reasonable of the landlord to take a holistic view and seek to resolve the complaint in that way.
The lack of clarity of the complaint process was unreasonable. It was not clear at what stage the resident’s complaint stood. In addition, the landlord should have been clear as to what was a group complaint and what constituted a group complaint. This is also to enable the landlord to offer resolution and make any offers of compensation fair and also be clear as to who is part of the process.
However, there was a benefit in treating the complaint as a single one, given the resident was of the view many of the complaints had not been resolved and that the complaint was reviewed by a senior member of staff. However, the substantive point is that it took a long time for the resident’s issues to be resolved. There was no evidence of a follow up after the meeting of 8 August 2021 in writing and little evidence of follow up by way of action. It had made a number of assurances within in its previous responses and, it is reasonable to conclude, in the meeting of 8 August 2021, yet the resident was still chasing most of the issues in December 2021. This demonstrated a lack of overview by the complaints team. An effective complaints team should monitor the relevant departments in order to ensure that the landlord’s assurances have been followed through and to update the resident proactively. The landlord should also recognise the part that its complaints procedure can play in resolving issues and ensure that the commitments are met, and show customer and resolution focus.
The response of 19 February 2021 referred the resident to this Service, while the response of 14 December 2021 did not do so. This was inappropriate and the landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The Housing ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The landlord recognised its delay in response and made a not insignificant offer of compensation. It was not clear whether the delay was from April 2020 (presumably so) or the previous month. While the landlord largely resolved the issues, it did not demonstrate how it would improve matters in the future. It also did not address the costs in the service charge account years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure. This would have constituted maladministration but for the resolution offered by the landlord.

The landlord’s record keeping.

This investigation was hampered by the lack of records provided by the landlord. It did not provide any evidence predating October 2020 or documents such as notes from the meeting 8 August 2021 and the response of 6 November 2020. The Ombudsman took the view there was sufficient information to carry out an investigation as, for example, while the landlord did not provide a note of the meeting of 8 August 2021, the resident referred to the outstanding issues in November 2021. However, the position was not satisfactory. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have reviewed the documents when reviewing the complaint, and it is obliged to provide full disclosure for this investigation.
The gaps in the evidence this investigation denotes, as well as poor record keeping, a lack of cohesion between teams, a lack of monitoring and lack of overall understanding of the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal services provided.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the service charges.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

While the landlord went some way in resolving the issues for the resident, there were delays and the landlord fell short of its promises of quality inspections and the standards of maintenance of the common parts.
The landlord went some way to resolve the issues for the resident. However, again, there were delays and there was no evidence that the landlord did not address the later service charge period.
The trajectory of the complaint was not clear, there was no evidence of the landlord monitoring its assurances and reviewing its own performance. However, it sought to find a resolution and recognised the overall delay.
The lack of records hampered this investigation and indicates a lack of monitoring and proper review of the case.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £800 within 4 weeks as follows:
  1. £200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal services provided.
  2. £150 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the service charges.
  3. £300 including the £200 offered to the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. £150 in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
2. The landlord should review, if it has not done so already, the service charges for the years 2020-1 and 2021-2022 and whether the charges for cleaning and grounds maintenance was correct. The landlord should then consider any adjustment or provide an explanation for the charges in respect of those items for that period. The landlord should provide this calculation and explanation to the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure it maintains accuracy and vigilance in relation to its service charge calculations.
2. The landlord should review how it handles its complaint in particular the role the complaints team plays in resolving issues, ensuring commitments are met, and maintains customer and resolution focus.
3. The landlord should take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s report www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf
4. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.