Rosebery Housing Association Limited (202114373)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114373

Rosebery Housing Association Limited

2 February 2022


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:
    1. reasonableness of the service charge for the year 2019-2020.
    2. information provided about the service charge, specifically the administration of the resident’s service charges and the timeliness of the information provided by the landlord.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The resident has mentioned that she is dissatisfied with service charges levied by the landlord in relation to projected and actual costs. Under Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.
  4. It is understood that the resident’s complaint concerns the information she was provided about the service charges and the landlord’s response to the queries she raised about the difference in the service charge. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The Ombudsman also cannot rule on any of the invoices provided as evidence. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges and how information about service charges was communicated by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The resident’s property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. On 17 December 2020, the landlord issued residents in the building with a service charge reconciliation notice stating that it had underestimated service charge costs for the year dated 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. Consequently, a further £283.13 per household would be due to the landlord for reconciliation of the service charges. The letter also attached a copy of the residents’ rights and obligations in regard to service charges.
  3. Between 2 January 2021 and 7 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting further information about the service charges.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint on 21 January 2021. The resident noted that previous emails sent were not responded to and her direct debit had been changed to account for the service charge reconciliation. The resident requested the direct debit be reverted to the original amount due to it being changed in line with the reconciliation of the service charges. The resident also requested the landlord review the charges and provide her with the receipts of the work carried out and a review into the reconciliation costs and the reasonableness of those costs.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 January 2021 and advised it aimed to respond by 8 February 2021.
  6. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 5 February 2021. It explained that it was handling high volumes of contact from residents regarding the reconciliation costs and therefore this was why there was a delay in corresponding with the resident. The landlord apologised for the delays in responding to the emails and acknowledged that this was a service failure. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s direct debit had also been amended to reflect the changes the resident requested, whilst her complaint was ongoing. The landlord also advised that it had contacted the resident to assist in the enquiry regarding the service charges and provide invoices for this period as requested. 
  7. The resident responded advising that parts of her complaint had gone unanswered and that she had not received invoices as requested and therefore the resident viewed the complaint as still being open.
  8. The landlord re-sent the information to the resident on 8 February 2021 and advised that the delay was due to a clerical error and the email was indeed sent on 3 February 2021. This information included the requested invoices for the 2019/2020 period.
  9. Further correspondence occurred between the landlord and resident between 9 February 2021 to 26 February 2021. The resident requested further information about the service charge and expressed concerns that the complaint regarding the service charges was not being addressed. The landlord informed the resident that any concerns or queries regarding the reconciliation process would not be processed as a part of the complaint procedure and instead would be addressed as part of the reconciliation process. The landlord also confirmed that the complaint it addressed at stage one of its complaints process was in response to the resident’s concerns of her emails not being responded to and this response did not cover the reconciliation of service charges. No further information was provided in regards to the service charges or invoices as requested by the resident.
  10. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 August 2021 requesting a payment for the service charges. The resident informed the landlord that she would not be paying the service charge until being provided with the invoices requested for the period dating back to 2015. The landlord advised that if the resident remained unhappy with the complaint, it could be escalated to stage two of its internal process.
  11. The resident requested a stage two complaint escalation on 1 September 2021 and this escalation was confirmed on 2 September 2021. This was due to not receiving information requested and the resident expressing concerns over parts of the complaint not being handled appropriately. 
  12. The landlord updated the resident on 16 September 2021 advising its stage two response was not ready at that point but would be ready by 17 September 2021. The stage two complaint response was then issued on 17 September 2021, which clarified again that the concerns regarding the reconciliation of service charges could not be handled by the landlord’s complaint procedure but instead informed the resident of her right to apply to the first-tier tribunal service (property chamber) if she was unhappy with the charges. The landlord further identified that there had been poor service in responding to the resident promptly from her contact in January and apologised again for the inconvenience. The landlord also identified that it did not seek to clarify the information being requested by the resident which therefore led to a delay in the resident receiving the invoices from 2015 onwards. It offered £50 compensation for this in line with its complaint’s procedure and apologised for the failings that had occurred. It informed the resident that the invoices would be provided to her and had been passed to the relevant team.
  13. The resident referred her case to the Ombudsman on 22 September 2021. The resident asked for this Service to investigate the reasonableness of the service charges relating to the period 2019-2020 and the administration of the charges.
  14. The landlord informed the resident on 30 November 2021 that the process of compiling all invoices had been completed and had been posted to the resident. The resident was unhappy with how long this process took to complete and felt that the delay in this communication was unreasonable.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord did not answer promptly following the first contact from the resident about the service charges. However, the landlord has explained this was due to a significant increase in emails as residents raised queries surrounding the reconciliation of service charges. Therefore, the landlord gave a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was understandable under the circumstances. The landlord also acted reasonably by apologising for this delay. Overall, the delay was not significant and the complaint was responded to within the appropriate time as per the landlord’s complaint policy.
  2. It was also appropriate for the landlord to explain that the service charge reconciliation process is separate from its complaints procedure and that it would address some of the resident’s concerns through this process rather than as part of the complaint response. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it referred the resident’s concerns about the reconciliation process to the correct department internally, which was the correct approach for issues which could not be considered through its complaints process.
  3. The resident also complained that the direct debit for the service charge had been amended without her consent. The direct debit was changed in accordance with the notification of the service charge that was served to the resident. When the resident disputed the additional charges, the direct debit was reinstated to the original amount payable whilst the complaint was ongoing. Therefore, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the direct debit.
  4. The resident has raised concerns about the delay in receiving the invoices she requested from the landlord. It is acknowledged that the resident asked for these invoices and the landlord did not seek clarification on the information the resident required to satisfy her query. The landlord acknowledged this confusion in its stage two complaint response and apologised for the delay in sending the invoices. It offered £50 compensation in view of this. The landlord also kept in touch with the resident to inform her when she could expect to receive the invoices.
  5. However, based upon the evidence provided to this Service, this delay did not have a significant impact as the resident did not follow the request up until August 2021 when the resident received another notification to inform her that payment was due for the reconciliation of the service charges.
  6. This is a reasonable amount of compensation as it is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that remedies in the range of £50 to £250 are suitable for instances of service failures which had an impact on the resident but were of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples given in the remedies guidance include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls and failures to meet service standards for actions and responses where the failure had no significant impact.
  7. The landlord also kept the resident informed about the progress of collating all of the requested invoices dating back to 2015. This was in line with good practice it is expected that an update should be provided if it takes an extensive time to gather the information being requested. The resident expressed dissatisfaction concerning the time taken to collect the information, however the landlord reasonably responded and explained the extent of the work being undertaken to gather the documents for the resident was a significant task. The landlord was reasonable to explain the delay and process to the resident so as to set realistic expectations as to when the information would be available and the reasoning behind this. 
  8. The resident has disputed that the landlord actually provided some of the services it had charged for through her service charge. Whilst it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on whether or not a service was completed or the reasonableness of the charges, we can investigate whether the landlord produced documentation to show that these services were charged for and recorded as being completed. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the invoices that showed a service was provided to the resident and this was a reasonable action for the landlord to take to assure the resident that the charges were correct.
  9. The resident also complained about the landlord not recalling contractors to repair jobs that were not up to satisfactory standards or later needed to be repaired again. Whilst The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments concerning the standard of repairs, it is outside The Ombudsman’s role to interfere in the day to day running of the landlord’s business. It is therefore outside our remit to say that the landlord should have recalled contractors rather than carrying out further repairs at a later date or that it should refund residents for the service charges paid for such repairs. As explained above, the resident may be able to refer her concerns about the amount of service charge, including whether it is good value for money to the First Tier Tribunal.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation, in response to the administration and its handling of communication in regards to the service charge reconciliation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted reasonably by accepting that there was a failure in the services it provided by not responding to the resident’s initial queries in January 2021. It provided appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this failing in line with its own compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.