Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202348477)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat within a building. The landlord is freeholder of the building and completed major work in 2018.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Major work queries.
   2. Service charge queries.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s major work queries was outside our jurisdiction and we have not investigated it.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s response to the resident’s major work queries.

7. The resident’s queries in relation to the major work charges concern matters which are now subject of court proceedings. Further to that, the major work was completed at the building in 2018. The resident did not raise a formal complaint until over 4 years later.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.

8. The landlord has responded reasonably and promptly to the resident’s queries raised.

Complaint handling.

9. The landlord sent both complaint responses in time, and the responses were sufficiently detailed to address the resident’s concerns.

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 did not consider

10. The resident also told us about the impact the situation had on his health. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
11. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this matter, we must advise this would fall outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to seek legal advice should he wish to discuss the matter further. Such matters will not form part of this investigation.

12. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
13. Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme says we cannot consider matters that are the subject of court proceedings. The resident and landlord have both provided evidence to confirm the major work service charges are now subject to court proceedings and a hearing is scheduled for June 2026.
14. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme also states we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The major work at the building was completed in 2018. The landlord has also said the original project manager that oversaw the work was no longer employed by it. The resident did not formally raise a complaint in relation to his issues with the work until 27 November 2023, over 4 years after the work was finished. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, the complaint is not within our jurisdiction.

15. The lease agreement says the leaseholder agrees to “contribute and pay to the lessors… a service charge… towards the annual costs.”
16. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. There is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until November 2023. Therefore, we will consider events from November 2022 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint). Therefore, this is taken as the starting point for this investigation. The end date is 26 January 2024 when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
17. The evidence showed the landlord sent the resident final accounts relating to the service charge in November 2022. It then sent them again on 28 February 2023 following a meeting with the resident. The same day the landlord emailed the resident and said:
    1. It would investigate the resident’s service charge concerns once it received specific queries in writing.
    2. It had been agreed the resident would make a payment towards the £2,570.12 service charge arrears.

There was no evidence of a response from the resident. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to send a follow-up email on 11 April 2023 to chase a response. The resident responded the next day and said he had “not had a chance to review the documents sent in February 2023 [and November 2022].”

18. The landlord chased again on 18 May 2023 and said the resident had still not confirmed what queries he had with the service charge. The resident replied 4 days later and said the installation of “dangerous communications equipment” had caused a roof leak and increased repairs which contributed to an increase in bills. Internal landlord emails the same day said the resident had been told the roof had been repaired free of charge and he was not charged.
19. There was no evidence of further contact until thelandlord chased the resident on 5 October 2023. This was after it had not received a response from the resident to clarify exactly what the service charge issues that he was querying. The resident asked how much he owedin ground renton 10 October 2023. The landlord responded a week later and explained it was not possible to tell how much ground rent was outstanding. The resident emailed on 17 November 2023with further queries. The landlord responded on 20 November 2023, which was prompt, and explained its position in relation to the ground rent/service charge. However, the resident raised theformal complaint a week later. The landlord then used its complaint process to reiterate its position. Overall, the landlord has acted reasonably in relation to the resident’s service charge queries. There was therefore no maladministration.

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
    1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days.
21. The landlord sent the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses in line with policy. Both responses tried to address the resident’s concerns, which was reasonable. There was therefore also no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. There were no issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

23. The communication of the landlord with the resident was reasonable. The evidence also showed the landlord took steps to provide the resident with advice and support, which was positive.