Sanctuary Housing Association (202531652)

Background

1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from 2014. The resident lived in an ‘extra care’ scheme and paid a fixed service charge. The resident passed away in February 2025, however prior to her passing, her representative and Power of Attorney complained about the increase in service charges and the landlord’s explanation of these.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The increase in service charges.
   2. The landlord’s response to the representative’s request for an explanation regarding the increase in service charges.
   3. The response to the representative’s complaint on behalf of the resident.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint regarding the increase in service charges is outside of our jurisdiction.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s explanation regarding the increase in service charges.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found the landlord:
   1. responded to each of the requests for information and explanations of the increases in a reasonable and timely manner.
   2. did not communicate its approach to managing the representative’s concerns, which resulted in a delay in providing a complaint response and time, trouble, and inconvenience to the representative.

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.

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.

7. The representative’s complaint here is in connection with the increase in service charges from the previous year. In our letter to her on 27 October 2025 we explained we do not investigate complaints about the level of service charges and so have not investigated this. If the representative wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she should refer this matter to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) using the contact details provided within the letter referenced above.

8. As we cannot investigate complaints regarding the level of service charges or the increase in service charges, this report will focus on the landlord’s communication with the representative and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
9. On 16 March 2023 the representative asked the landlord to explain the increase in service charges from the following year which she said were “not fair or ethical”. The landlord told the representative her query had been forwarded to the relevant team, and she was contacted on 31 March 2023, however, the staff member was not able to help. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s internal communication which is likely to have caused frustration for the representative who waited a further 2 weeks for contact.
10. The landlord contacted the representative on 14 April 2023 to explain why its response to her queries had been delayed. It confirmed it was now able to respond and met with her on 17 April 2023. This was a reasonable suggestion and allowed each party the opportunity to discuss the concerns raised.
11. On 18 April 2023 the representative asked for copies of the charges from 2022 to 2024. The landlord sent these 3 days later which was a reasonable and timely response, however the representative said the breakdown did not answer her questions regarding the increase. The landlord advised it had sent her queries to the local service manager to respond to. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to address the representatives concerns.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord listed the representative’s concerns. It confirmed she was seeking additional information to gain a better understanding and justification as to what was being charged compared to the services provided. The landlord addressed each increase in turn. It compared budgets to actual costs. It explained how costs were obtained through actual meter readings, maintenance, and utility costs. It explained how each of these had contributed to the overall increase of service charges. This was reasonable.
13. The representative met the landlord again on 5 September 2023 and sent a further email on 9 September 2023 where she asked for more information and further explanations relating to the service charges. The landlord responded on 15 September 2023 when it addressed the questions asked and, on 13 October 2023, it provided additional information and copies of invoices for gas usage. The landlord responded in a reasonable and timely manner providing the information requested.
14. The representative remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint. She said the additional information had not provided reasons for the increases and asked further questions. The landlord responded to each question and provided supplementary information to answer her concerns. This was also reasonable.
15. In summary we find no maladministration. The landlord responded to each of the representative’s queries within a reasonable timeframe and provided detailed responses when asked. This included budget provision and cost information, meeting with the representative on several occasions, providing copies of invoices when requested, and providing explanations to clarify the increases in service charges.

16. The representative stated she complained to the landlord on 16 March 2023 but did not receive a response. The landlord told the representative her query had been forwarded to the relevant team to respond. While this was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and income management procedure for responding to service charge enquiries, there is no evidence it communicated this to her. This left her believing she had raised a complaint with the landlord.
17. On 14 April 2023 the landlord contacted the representative to acknowledge her “feelings on how the complaint had been handled thus far”. It repeatedly referred to the “complaint” but failed to explain it was managing the matter outside of the complaint process. This was a communication failure as the landlord did not set the representative’s expectations.
18. The representative contacted us regarding her complaint stating she had not received a response. The landlord advised it had responded to her queries but had not logged a formal complaint. The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint and provided a stage 1 response on 29 August 2023. The landlord’s response addressed the issues raised by the representative in her email and during the meeting it held with her. The landlord responded to the complaint by the date set by us. This was reasonable.
19. The representative escalated her complaint on 17 October 2023. She asked the landlord supplementary questions as she said she did not consider its response justified or that it substantiated the increase in charges. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 30 October 2023, 9 working days later. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy which states it would respond within 20 working days from receipt.
20. Considering the above, we find maladministration. The representative believed she had raised a complaint in March 2023 and spent time and effort chasing a response. The landlord missed several opportunities to clarity and explain its approach to responding to her queries which left her unclear as to what was happening. Furthermore, the representative felt the need to contact us for support in progressing the complaint. This was not reasonable.
21. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident’s estate £100 compensation. While there was no permanent impact due to its complaint handling failings, the landlord did not acknowledge the lack of clarity, or offer redress for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.

Learning

22. To help set expectations, if a resident raises a complaint regarding service charges, a landlord should make it clear how it will manage and respond to the queries at the earliest opportunity.