Peabody Trust (202324676)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block. The freehold of the building is owned by a third-party company. The landlord holds a head-lease with the freeholder and an under-lease with the resident. A managing agent manages the building and provides services on behalf of the freeholder. Between 10 August 2023 and 31 August 2023, the resident raised issues about services provided and communication with the managing agent for the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a failure to provide services.
   2. Request for information on the service charges.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of a failure to provide services.
5. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified failures in its response to the resident’s request for information on the service charges.
6. There was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it engaged with the managing agent or the freeholder about the resident’s concerns about a lack of services. As a result, the resident received no answers to her queries about a lack of services. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
8. The landlord identified failings in its presentation of information on service charges and took action to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring. It apologised and offered redress which was appropriate in the circumstances.
9. The landlord failed to provide the resident with escalation rights in its stage 1 complaint response and it failed to address a key complaint issue.  This failure caused avoidable delay and inconvenience to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at and why

10. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the increase in service charges appeared disproportionate and unjustified. We cannot consider complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges as these complaints are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we have assessed the landlord’s communication around the service charge enquiry and whether it correctly followed its relevant policies and procedures.

The landlord’s response to reports of a failure to provide services

11. The resident’s contract is with the landlord. When the resident raised concerns about the services provided it would be reasonable to expect pro-active engagement from the landlord with the stakeholders responsible for the works and raise these concerns on behalf of the resident. It would also be reasonable to expect effective communication with the resident.
12. When the resident raised her complaint, she was unhappy with a number of services including window cleaning, gardening services, concierge services, cleaning services, and vehicle management on site. When she escalated her complaint, she was unhappy that the services that she was being charged for were not being delivered.
13. We were not provided with records of communication between the landlord and the management agent or freeholder. Neither the stage 1 nor the stage 2 complaint response refers to these issues, as such, we cannot reasonably determine that the landlord raised these concerns with the relevant stakeholders. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have communicated the issues on behalf of the resident and engaged meaningfully with the managing agent to investigate and provide a comprehensive response to the specific matters raised by the resident.
14. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that if it “were solely responsible for the management of the estate, we would be able to provide more immediate clarity.” It is acknowledged that the direct provision of these services is not fully within the landlord’s operational control, however, we would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to engage with the managing agent or if they are unresponsive, the freeholder. Its failure to demonstrate that it acted in the best interest of the resident was inappropriate and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident.

The landlord’s response to a request for information on the service charges

15. The landlord is responsible for the actions of the management agent. This investigation has considered the landlord’s communication between all parties and how it handled the resident’s concerns about the impact caused to her.
16. It is not disputed that there were failings in its response to a request for information on the service charges. The landlord apologised for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by failings identified in providing the resident with information on service charges. The landlord offered £75 compensation for this failure. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord provided a breakdown of the service charges and accepted that there was an error in its presentation of the charges, however it also confirmed that the charges were correct. As a result of the complaint, it changed the format of the how the information is presented and was looking at ways to improve the presentation of the information. This was an appropriate response and demonstrates learning from the complaint.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged there was a delay in providing the requested information to the resident through its complaint responses. It had asked the managing agent to provide the resident with the requested invoices. The evidence shows that the delay in providing the complaint responses, also delayed the landlord providing the resident with the requested information. Landlords should ensure that they are proactive in pursuing managing agents for meaningful account information in relation to its service charges to ensure it is provided in a timely manner. The landlord accepted this failure, apologised, offered £75 redress, and provided feedback to its service charges team to reduce the likelihood of the same failing reoccurring. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take to put things right for the resident.

19. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
20. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 26 working days beyond its timescales after it acknowledged the complaint. It acknowledged the complaint escalation 15 working days beyond its timescales. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £150 for this failure and stated that it was carrying out improvement to its complaint handling processes through recruitment and training. This was a reasonable offer to put things right and indicates a commitment to improvement of its complaint handling services.
21. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint about a lack of services. While it is acknowledged that the landlord is not the freeholder, it should have used its complaint process to demonstrate that it had communicated these issues on behalf of the resident. It further should have considered any improvements it could implement to improve the effectiveness and meaningfulness of its engagement with the managing agent and/or freeholder.
22. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to include details of the resident’s escalation rights. It later identified this failing when it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint response. This failure caused avoidable delay and inconvenience to the resident.

Learning

Complaint handling

23. This investigation identified complaint handling practices that did not comply with the Code. The stage 1 complaint response did not include the resident’s escalation rights and the complaint responses failed to address an element of the resident’s complaint. We encourage the landlord to review this case against the Code and implement any learning it finds to improve its complaint handling.

Knowledge and information management 

24. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so