Plus Dane Housing Limited (202300413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300413

Plus Dane Housing Limited

24 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to a communal fence.
2. Request for information to show how the service charges, sinking fund and sales surcharges are calculated and administered.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been the shared owner of a 2-bed ground floor flat since 2006.
The resident had complained previously about the service charges. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in February 2022 and provided signposting information about the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). The landlord’s evidence shows the resident first made contact about a rotten fence and loose posts in February 2022. The landlord inspected the fence, but the resident remained unhappy with the lack of repairs.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 August 2022. He said:
1. communication with the landlord was difficult
2. he did not understand the sinking fund
3. he was unaware of the sales surcharge and wanted evidence he had agreed to this
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 September 2022. The landlord:
1. advised it had tried several times before successfully speaking to him. It gave an email address as an alternative contact method
2. advised The Fifth Schedule clause (6)(b) of the lease confirmed a Sinking Fund contribution is due on the completion of any staircasing transaction and any assignment
3. provided the calculation for the Sinking Fund contributions
4. confirmed the provision under the terms of the lease to allow for a reserve fund to be collected under the service charge
5. acknowledged the resident had said he had not been made aware of this when he purchased the property, but advised the solicitor should have explained all the obligations at the time
6. confirmed the resident agreed to the obligations when he signed the lease agreement
7. confirmed it had received a contribution from all staircasing transactions into the Sinking Fund
8. confirmed the terms associated with selling the property and how costs can be recovered and how these are done in line with the terms of the lease
The resident escalated his complaint on 21 September 2022. He remained dissatisfied with:
1. the sinking fund and sales surcharge explanation
2. the length of time taken to repair the boundary fence
3. the provision of documents previously requested
4. As a resolution, the resident asked for:
  1. the queries regarding the Sinking Fund and surcharges answered
  2. the documents to be provided
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 October 2022. It:
1. confirmed the role of the solicitor acting on the resident’s behalf who should have discussed all the obligations under the terms of the lease
2. provided further information regarding the Sinking Fund and answered the additional questions raised by the resident in his escalation request
3. apologised for the delays and inconvenience regarding the fence repairs. It said it prioritised repairs based on urgency, and complex and major repairs were taking longer to complete which was affecting the less urgent repairs
4. confirmed it had requested a copy of the signed lease agreement from its solicitor and suggested the resident contacted his own solicitor for a copy
The resident made a further complaint on 23 March 2023. This related to:
1. the lack of progress regarding the fence repairs
2. the service charges for ground maintenance
3. as a resolution, the resident asked when the repairs would be completed, and evidence regarding the service charge increase
The landlord provided its response on 9 June 2023. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and:
1. confirmed it was first notified about the fence in March 2022. The fence was made safe, and the job had been recorded as completed
2. advised a further inspection had been completed in May 2022 but no work was identified
3. said in June 2022 temporary fencing was installed but unclear notes had resulted in no further work being completed
4. said it attended in September 2022, but the materials were not available. On return, no repairs were identified
5. said in November 2022, the job was marked as completed
6. said when the repair was chased in February 2023 it had to obtain confirmation regarding land ownership and if the residents were liable for payment via the Sinking Fund
7. confirmed a Section 20 (S20) consultation had to be completed and that it was expecting a second quote in the next 14 days. Instructions would then be given to complete the work as soon as possible
8. confirmed the residents would be updated when the work was arranged
9. confirmed it would monitor the completion of the work
10. confirmed it was to look at the management of fencing repairs to ensure they were completed in a timely manner and residents were kept updated
The resident approached this Service for assistance and the landlord was asked to process the complaint accordingly. The resident asked for:
1. the fence to be repaired and a timescale for completion
2. compensation for the poor service received
3. one month’s rent as a gesture of goodwill
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 14 July 2023. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and:
1. apologised for the time taken to repair the fence
2. confirmed that at the time of the stage 1 response, it had only received one quote. For value for money, it had to obtain a second
3. confirmed the work was completed on 1 July 2023
4. offered £75 for the inconvenience and disruption caused

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In contact with this Service, the resident referred to several other issues which cannot be included in the report. We have explained to the resident what will and will not be included in the report and provided the reasons why. The resident should refer to previous correspondence for confirmation.

The landlord’s response to reports of repairs to a communal fence.

The landlord’s repair policy states it will repair major fencing work within 90 days.
As outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs complaints, we expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents
The resident reported a rotten fence and loose posts in February 2022. The landlord told the resident a ‘recent’ inspection had been completed but when on site it had been told the work had been completed. A further inspection was however completed on 28 February 2022 and repairs were booked for 19 April 2022. This was appropriate and reflected the policy.
On 1 March 2022, following concern over the safety of the fence, the landlord requested a further inspection. This was reasonable. The inspection on 16 March 2022 found:
1. the fence spans the entire boundary between the landlord and two properties at the end of the street
2. a full replacement was needed
3. there was no immediate danger, but further winds may result in it coming down
The landlord asked if the replacement of the fence could be added to the investment programme for the following year. It had however at this point established that the leaseholders and shared owners were responsible for the charges associated with the repair. As a result, the landlord asked the repairs team if the repairs could be completed sooner. This was a reasonable request to make to providing a quicker resolution to the complaint.
In July 2022 the landlord asked a contractor for a quote for the work. The 4-month delay in requesting a quote was a failure by the landlord and prolonged the work further.
The resident continued to report the lack of repairs to the landlord and included his dissatisfaction in his complaint escalation on 21 September 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2022, the landlord:
1. apologised for the delay and recent experience with the repairs service
2. explained it assessed and prioritised the urgency of repairs when reported
3. advised there was a high demand on the fencing service
4. explained complex and major repairs were taking longer to complete which was affecting the less urgent timescales
5. explained it was facing challenges in a shortage in materials and resources
As the cost to replace the fencing was over the qualifying service charge threshold of £250, the landlord confirmed a Section 20 (S20) consultation was needed. This was in line with the Service Charge Policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The consultation, however, did not commence until 15 November 2022. There is no evidence to support why the 4-month delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord and added to the delay in the repairs.
After the consultation period ended in December 2022 there is no evidence of any repairs being completed or any further contact with the resident to explain the delays. This was unreasonable.
Due to a lack of repairs, the resident submitted a further complaint in March 2023. In its response on 9 June 2023 the landlord:
1. provided a timeline of action from March 2022 to November 2023
2. confirmed further quotes were needed due to the S20 consultation
3. advised it was expecting a second quote within the next 14 days and then instructions would be given for the work to be completed
4. confirmed residents would be updated on when the work would be done
5. explained it was looking at how it could manage fencing repairs more effectively
In its stage 2 complaint response on 14 July 2023, the landlord confirmed the fencing repairs had been completed on 1 July 2023, 16 months after they were first reported. The landlord apologised for the level of service received and offered £75 for the inconvenience and disruption caused. As there was no permanent impact on the resident, the offer from the landlord was reasonable.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to a communal fence.

Request for information to show how the service charges, sinking fund and sales surcharges are calculated and administered

The resident’s lease agreement confirms the obligations required of him in terms of payment of rent, charges, contributions to the Sinking Fund and the Staircasing provisions. There is a particular focus in The Fifth Schedule of the lease.

Sinking fund and sales surcharges

In his complaint on 3 August 2022 the resident said he was “perplexed” about the sinking fund and sales surcharges. He asked the landlord for evidence that he had agreed to the sales surcharge.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord referred to the lease, and particularly The Fifth Schedule clause 2 (6)(b) which confirmed the resident’s legal obligations regarding the payment into the Sinking Fund and the calculation used. The landlord confirmed that in signing the lease, the resident had agreed to the charges, and these would have been discussed at the point of sale by his solicitor.
Based on the evidence, the landlord made a clear and accurate reference to the correct clause within the lease. This is a legally binding document confirming the resident’s obligations, including payment of fees and charges. The landlord correctly advised the resident that the lease should have been discussed in detail by his solicitor at the time of the sale. Finally, it provided confirmation of the resident’s agreement to the charges because he had signed the lease.
The landlord’s response was reasonable. It confirmed the legal obligations of the resident to pay the charges as detailed in the signed lease agreement. The response was in line with our expectations around providing clear information, as per the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report – A new lease of life, published in September 2020.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint. The resident:
1. said the “complex charges” were not explained at the time of sale and he wanted more explanation
2. asked if he was paying twice – once as a service charge and then again as a percentage of the sale
3. asked how much was in the Sinking Fund
As per paragraph 8 of this report, the landlord provided the resident with the answers to the questions raised. The landlord provided a clear account of the charges expected of the resident as per the lease, including a clear explanation as to how these are calculated, audited and held in a separate bank account, as required by law.
While the landlord answered the questions raised by the resident, based on the referral to this Service, he remains dissatisfied with the information about the sinking fund and sale surcharge. The resident may wish to contact the Leasehold Advisory Service (www.lease-advice.org) for independent advice around this element of the complaint.

Service charges

On 2 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord for evidence to show the increase in service charges. The landlord responded the same day with a list of charges for each service covered. This was reasonable and within the timeframe specified in Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
On 20 March 2023 the resident raised a specific concern regarding the increase in service charges for the grounds maintenance and was provided with an invoice to show how it matched the budget.
On 20 June 2023 he asked for more invoices to show a comparison in charges and a full breakdown of service charges. The landlord provided the information requested on 14 July 2023. This was appropriate and was in the time specified in Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
In summary the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the information provided by the landlord to show how the service charge and sinking fund is calculated and administered. This is because:
1. the landlord has evidenced the provision of the annual service charge review to the resident, as per its obligations
2. the landlord referred to the relevant clauses within the lease agreement when providing its responses
3. the landlord explained how the sinking fund is calculated and referred to the appropriate terms in the lease
4. the landlord explained the reason for the sales surcharges
5. the landlord has provided the information when requested and within a timely manner

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process in which it stated it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of receipt. Stage 2 complaints would be responded to within 20 working days of receipt. Regardless of the stage, if an extension is required, this will be communicated to the resident.
The resident first complained on 3 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 August 2022 confirming it would respond by 1 September 2022. Although the landlord apologised for the delay in the acknowledgement, the time taken was unreasonable and did not reflect the policy.
The landlord sent a holding letter on 1 September 2022. It explained it needed to discuss the concerns raised with its solicitor and would respond by 15 September 2022. This was reasonable, however on 15 September 2022 it sent a second holding letter advising it needed more time to ensure the response was accurate. It said it would respond by 21 September 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2022, 33 working days after receipt. The landlord apologised for the delay, but the time taken was not appropriate. It did not reflect the policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states any extension must be no more than ten working days without good reason.
The resident escalated his complaint on 21 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2022, 24 working days after the escalation was received. This delay was not communicated to the resident. The time taken to respond, and the lack of communication was not appropriate as this was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident made a further complaint on 23 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 16 May 2023 and confirmed it would respond at stage 1 by 31 May 2023. This was not consistent with the policy.
The landlord sent a holding letter on 31 May 2023. It said it needed more time to review the information to ensure the response was accurate. The landlord said it would respond by 9 June 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 9 June 2023, 52 working days from when the complaint was made. This was significantly delayed and did not reflect the policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 23 June 2023. It provided its final complaint response on 14 July 2023 18 working days after the escalation request. This was reasonable and was in line with policy.
Considering all the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. As such, an order of compensation has been made. While there was no permanent impact on the resident, the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint handling failings, identify any learning to prevent a recurrence, or acknowledge the time and trouble taken by the resident chasing the landlord for a response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to a communal fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the request for information to show how the service charges, sinking fund and sales surcharges are calculated and administered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident in which it must address the failures identified within this report and confirm the learning taken from them
2. pay the resident £100 for the impact of the complaint handling failures and the inconvenience to the resident
3. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £75 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to a communal fence is made on the basis this compensation is paid.