Retirement Lease Housing Association (202307689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307689

Retirement Lease Housing Association (RLHA)

10 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding its service charge budget.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, the landlord is the freeholder. The lease began on 2 April 2009 and the property is a first floor flat within a purpose built complex of independent retirement living accommodation. The complex includes communal areas and facilities. The landlord has indicated it is not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord held an annual budget consultation meeting on 8 September 2022, the resident had sent the landlord questions regarding specific charges included in the proposed budget on 28 August 2022. The resident has said the landlord did not provide answers to all the questions it had received at the meeting. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 separate occasions following the meeting, to chase for the answers to these outstanding issues. The landlord advised the resident on 14 November 2022 that it was still working on its responses to her queries.
The resident wrote a formal letter of complaint on 29 November 2022, she said the landlord had failed to comply with the Association of Retirement Managers (ARHM) code of practise in setting of the annual service charge budget, it had made no attempt to justify the proposed costs, and had failed to respond to her queries since the meeting.
The landlord provided its stage1 response on 15 December 2022. Its response included:
1. Its position on the specific points raised by the resident about the service charge budget.
2. It accepted it would have been more helpful to have reviewed all the questions it had received in advance of the meeting.
3. It apologised for the lack of response to the resident’s queries raised before the meeting and in the following weeks.
4. It was satisfied that appropriate information was provided, and leaseholders were consulted, given the opportunity the raise queries and express their views.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2022 and said its response had clarified some of the issues within her complaint, however it had not addressed her key complaint, specifically that the landlord had not complied with the ARHM code of practise when setting the service charge budget.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 January 2023. Its response included:
1. It reiterated that it felt the information provided was appropriate but acknowledged the resident requested further information which took time and was in some instances delayed.
2. It confirmed it had a quote from a surveyor to complete a new planned maintenance plan which would be made available when it had been carried out.
3. It did not accept that a breach of the ARHM code had occurred but acknowledged the resident thought differently.
4. It advised the resident she was not acting as a representative for all leaseholders therefore it would not send information to all leaseholders as she had requested.
The resident asked the landlord if her complaint would go before the board on 1 February 2023. The landlord informed the resident on 14 March 2023, that the chairman of the board had advised due to its operational nature, the resident’s complaint would not be considered by the board, and she could escalate her concerns to the Ombudsman, ARHM or the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
The resident approached the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint and on 10 July 2023, said that her complaint concerned how the landlord handled finalising the budget and its disregard for the ARHM code of practise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint was regarding the landlord breaching the AHRM code of practise. This code is approved by the UK government and represents best practice in the retirement housing sector, the ARRM accepts complaints about its members. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. This part of the resident’s complaint will not specifically be considered in this investigation, and the resident may wish to approach the ARHM directly on this matter.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increases. Part of the resident’s complaint related to the reasonableness of service charges, and the service charge increases. While the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint about service charges, it does not have the jurisdiction to consider whether the service charges or the increases were reasonable, as that would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). This aspect of the resident’s complaint is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter.
Since raising this complaint, the resident has brought a separate complaint to this service which has been accepted for investigation. Although some aspects of this complaint are similar in nature to that of the new complaint, they relate to different time periods, therefore, for clarity, this report will focus on the complaint made to the landlord in November 2022 only.
It is noted that the resident refers to other leaseholders within her complaint raised with the landlord. Whilst these comments have been noted, this aspect of the complaint cannot be investigated due to the resident not being, in a formal capacity recognised by this Service, acting as a representative for any other party. The resident may wish to advise other residents to submit their own complaints with the landlord to allow it to investigate their individual concerns fully. For clarity this is not a group complaint, this investigation will focus on the individual concerns and communication raised by the resident to the landlord.

Service charges

It is not in dispute that the resident was responsible to pay for services provided by the landlord as per the lease. As noted above, this investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries and not the level of service charge itself.
A key element of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had written to leaseholders on 24 August 2022, with information regarding the budget inviting queries but then was not able to provide satisfactory explanations at its budget consultation meeting on 8 September 2022. This in itself is not unreasonable, as it is understood some queries may take time to investigate prior to providing an answer. The landlord committed to provide the further information following the meeting. According to the evidence provided, following the meeting the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions for an update. The landlord responded to the resident on 14 November 2022 and advised that it was still working on its responses to her queries, and it would try to get its response to her as soon as it could. It took the landlord approximately 2 months to give the resident an update which was not reasonable, in addition it did not respond when the resident questioned why it had taken so long to look into her queries. Its customer service standards state that it would respond to emails within 48 hours, it is evident in this case it failed to do this on multiple occasions. Within its initial response the landlord offered an apology for the lack of response following the meeting and acknowledged that even though the resident’s queries required further investigation, it should have kept the resident up to date with progress.
The resident made a detailed complaint to the landlord on 29 November 2022, within her complaint she raised specific service charge issues. At the time of her complaint the landlord had not come back on “some facts and figures” as committed to within its minutes of the meeting held in September 2022. The landlord provided an update to these on 5 December 2022 and then throughout its complaint process. Overall, it took the landlord 3 months to respond to the resident’s specific queries, it is not clear why the landlord took this time, and no evidence has been provided to show its actions following the resident’s complaint. This indicates the landlord’s records may not have been adequate for it to provide a response in a timelier manner. It is evident the resident spent avoidable time and trouble chasing the landlord and raising a complaint to get a response.
A key element of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had not consulted with leaseholders prior to finalising the budget, she did not believe the meeting alongside the information provided constituted a consultation. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was satisfied that it had provided appropriate information and given leaseholders to an opportunity to raise queries or express their views. It did acknowledge that its process could be improved however and that the resident’s individual concerns would be ongoing outside of its complaint process. It would have been reasonable in the circumstance for the landlord to address all the residents concerns within its complaint process. This demonstrated that the landlord was more committed to responding to the complaint on time rather than in full which was not reasonable.
The resident went into detail about how she believed the landlord had breached the ARHM code of practise within her complaint, the landlord failed to respond to this aspect of her complaint in its stage 1 response, causing her time and trouble in escalating her complaint. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at an early stage. This failing caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further. The landlord, then, within its stage 2 response, gave a generalised statement that it did not agree that a breach had occurred. Although the landlord could have expanded on its reasons and it would no doubt have been frustrating for the resident that the landlord had not addressed this at an earlier stage, it was good that it provided its final position on the matter. As it was still in dispute, the landlord should have provided details for the resident to escalate her complaint within its final response. This is expanded on further along in this report.
Overall, the landlord’s communication at the early stage, following the resident’s initial query was ineffective. This led to the resident being inconvenienced by the need to continually query the landlord and chase it for a response on multiple occasions. The landlord took 5 months to respond to the resident’s service charge queries with limited contact during this period which was not reasonable. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its communication failings in its handling of the matter within its complaint process but did not offer any form of redress. Taking this into consideration, a finding of service failure has been made.

Complaint

The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its complaint policy at the time describes its stage 1 as a “one touch complaint review” and says it will communicate its decision in writing within 14 days. This policy also says that that at stage 2 its chief executive will review the complaint within 5 days and send a decision in writing following the review. Its policy states that this concludes its formal complaints process, however, in some instances, there is also an option to contact the board to request an appeal. It says the board will decide if the appeal will be considered or not.
The resident made her complaint on 29 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged this on 30 November 2022. It then provided an update to the resident on 7 December 2022 that it required more time and provided its response on 15 December 2022. This was within its policy timeframe to provide its stage 1 response. The resident escalated her complaint in an email on 16 December 2022, the landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged this communication but provided its response on 31 January 2023. Its stage 2 response took 30 working days, which exceeds its policy timescale for a review by 25 working days. The resident asked if her complaint would be considered by the board on 1 February 2023. The landlord did not advise the resident that the board would not consider her complaint until 14 March 2023. This was a further delay of 30 working days. Overall, there was a delay of 55 working days throughout its complaint process, which was not reasonable and caused a delay in the resident escalating her complaint further.
Section 5.8 of the Code at the time said the landlord must provide certain information in its stage 1 responses, including “details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer”. The landlord provided no details in its stage 1 response on how the resident could escalate her complaint if dissatisfied. Furthermore, section 5.16 of the Code at the time confirmed stage 2 responses must contain certain information including details of how to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman if the resident remains dissatisfied. The resident was advised of further escalation routes within an email on 14 March 2023, not within the landlord’s complaint response, which was not in line with the Code.
The Code states that the complaint response should be in writing and confirm the complaint stage and the complaint definition. It is evident that the landlord had not made this clear in its response, which was a further failing. Its complaint responses were in writing but very informal. In addition, the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint were issued by its chief executive, although its complaint policy at the time did not stipulate who would respond, it is good practise and mentioned in the Code that an independent person should review a complaint to that who responded at stage 1.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all the resident’s concerns. Its stage 2 response was outside of its specified policy timescale, was informal and not in accordance with the Code. There was then a further delay in communicating the resident’s escalation routes when she remained dissatisfied. The failings caused the resident further time and trouble having to pursue her complaint with this Service.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles say landlords should be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. A landlord is expected to acknowledge its mistakes in a complaint process and learn from them to improve its services. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failings within its complaint responses and therefore offered no redress. Due to the complaint handling failures identified above, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 to reflect the inconvenience its delayed responses would have caused. This figure is in line with our Remedies guidance, where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Wider investigation

On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. The Ombudsman has found failures in this investigation, as well as in previous investigations, in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries about the service charge budget.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failures identified in its handling of her complaint.
2. Pay the resident in total £350, to include:
  1. £100 for the inconvenience caused in its response to the resident’s concerns about the service charge budget.
  2. £250 for the complaint handling failings identified in this report.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.
The landlord is ordered to review this case and set out:
1. How it will ensure future enquiries made regarding its service charge budget are responded to with consideration to its published customer service standards.
2. How it will ensure comprehensive responses are provided to service charge budget enquiries at the earliest opportunity, considering any statutory obligations.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 8 weeks of this determination.