Southern Housing (202233614)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233614

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 September 2024

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 landlord’s handling of: 
   1. The communal electricity supply and service charge.
   2. The resident’s request to know what was included in the communal cleaning service charge.
   3. The replacement of communal doors.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a shared owner of the property, a third floor 2-bedroom flat, since 2012. There are a total of 49 flats in the block. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the block.
4. On 12 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about the fluctuating monthly charges for communal cleaning and the money building up in relation to the communal electricity.
5. The resident informed this service she had sent over 600 emails to the landlord on the issue. However, the next email in the landlord’s evidence after 2020 is the one described below in 2022.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2022. She asked, how the cleaning was calculated, what the situation was with the quotes for the communal doors and if there was an update on the registration of the solar panels and electric meters. She also asked what amount of money associated with the communal electric had built up over the previous 10 years and if the amount had accrued interest.
7. On 22 September 2023, the landlord told the resident that the cleaning costs varied as it was calculated as an apportionment of the total cleaning charge in the county rather than just the resident’s block. The cleaning costs included costs associated with, staff payroll, vehicles, fuel, satnav’s, tracker units, wireless hoovers, batteries and cleaning consumables. It was changing its charging process to a standard monthly cost from 2022-2023 onwards. It said it was waiting on a response about the questions she asked regarding the communal electric.
8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2022. She advised of her ongoing concerns about the replacement of the communal doors instead of continually spending money on repairs. She asked again what amount of money had built up for the communal electric and if it had contacted the energy supplier about the electric bill. The landlord responded on 18 October 2022. It advised that over the 10 year period £52,678 had built up. It confirmed its energy manager was chasing the supplier trying to obtain a bill. It also said it would not pay interest on any money it refunded as there was no interest on service charges.
9. The resident made a formal complaint on 1 November 2022. She said:
   1. She had been asking for 3 years what aspect of the electrics the solar panels contributed to.
   2. She wanted the £52,678 that had accumulated for communal electric refunded back to residents.
   3. The repair and replacement of the communal doors had been going on for several years. The landlord had obtained quotes, but the work had not progressed.
   4. After spending years working with different managers to resolve the issues, she had now been told to only contact a generic email address.
   5. She wanted to know why the service charge for communal cleaning was different each month.
10. On 11 November 2022 in response to an internal request for clarification about the electric charges, the landlord advised they had partnered with a new energy broker and were waiting for electricity usage estimates for the following year.
11. On 13 November 2022, the resident sent a follow up email to her stage 1 response. She said that the landlord had visited in 2021 and had seen the condition of every communal door. The doors were in a poor condition and were allowing nonresidents to enter and partake in antisocial behaviour.
12. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 November 2022 to notify her that the complaint response would be delayed and that it would respond in full on 9 December 2022.
13. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 December 2022. It listed the following points:
    1. It had entered into a contract with its energy supplier on 1 October 2022. It expected its first bill on 15 November 2022. By the end of January 2023, it would be able to determine the amount of money it had to pay back to each household in line with the service charge allocations for each building.
    2. After the annual general meeting in early October, it had raised a work order to have the communal doors inspected. Many of the doors were beyond repair and needed replaced. As they were all specialist fire doors they had to be individually manufactured. Once built and delivered it would install the doors. It was optimistic this would happen in January 2023.
    3. The landlord conducted the cleaning of the building. The costs varied depending on the cleaning activities undertaken. The cleaning activities included, vacuuming, and wiping down surfaces. The service charge for cleaning included bulk waste removal.
    4. It apologised for not having a full-time property manager in place. It had appointed a new and experienced property manager who it had briefed on all aspects of the building. It provided a specific email address to contact them.
14. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 December 2022. She said:
    1. She had raised the issue about the electric in 2018 and wanted to know why it had taken the landlord so long to act. It said it expected to have a bill on 15 November 2022, which it still did not have. She wanted her complaint to remain open until February in the hope a bill would be issued.
    2. She had still not heard from the property manager and wanted to know if the residents should be asking for a meeting or if they should await contact.
    3. The landlord saying in its stage 1 response that it had only been made aware of the issues with the communal doors over “the last few days” was incorrect. She had been raising the issues with the doors over the last 5 years. They had also been in the action plan for the block for the previous 2 years.
    4. She still did not understand how the landlord calculated the communal cleaning costs and requested a further explanation. She also disagreed with its statement on the bulk waste collection. She said the management company was responsible for bulk waste.
    5. The landlord said the cleaning amounted to more than just hoovering. She disputed this and asked for evidence.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 14 December 2022. It sent a further email on 20 December 2022 informing her that a panel would be meeting to review her stage 2 complaint on 5 January 2023. It said it would provide its response by 19 January 2023.
16. On 5 January 2023, the landlord sent an internal email. It wanted to clarify the current position on the fire doors given the resident’s comments made in relation to the stage 1 response and the points in her stage 2 escalation. The internal response indicated that the department responsible were only aware of one door leading from the carpark on the ground floor. A request to repair all other doors had been sent to a different department.
17. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 January 2023. It detailed its findings as follows:
    1. It had approached the utility provider who said the meters had been deactivated. It also checked with the managing agent who confirmed they had not received an electric bill for the communal electric.
    2. It had continued to charge for the communal electric and set the money aside to make sure there were sufficient funds to cover the bill when it arrived.
    3. It was waiting for the electric bill. It had been told that the supplier cannot charge for anything further back than 6 years. It did not expect to have to request any additional money from residents.
    4. Once it had received quotes for the communal doors it would consult with residents. It expected the process would be complete by 10 March 2023.
    5. It had appointed a property manager as a point of contact for the resident’s block. They had arranged a virtual residents meeting for 17 January 2023. At the meeting it would consult with residents on the frequency of the meetings in the future. It acknowledged it had not met the communication commitments it had previously made. This was due to staff shortages, which it had now resolved. It apologised for these short comings in communication.
    6. It confirmed the communal cleaning takes place fortnightly on a Tuesday and provided a list of the cleaning tasks. During the cleaning visit it would report any fly-tipping, repairs or items left in communal areas.
    7. The monthly charge for cleaning services varied due to the bulk purchase of cleaning materials, which would show up in the months the materials were bought and not others. It had now changed its process and would charge the same amount each month.
    8. It was unable to provide a cleaning record or an itemised list of the cleaning product for each visit. As a service improvement it would be looking to introduce a portal to show the cleaning tasks undertaken.
    9. It apologised for the error in its stage 1 response relating to the bulk waste removal. The resident had been correct. The managing agent was responsible for the removal and charging associated with bulk waste. While the charge does appear in the estimate for the landlord’s cleaning costs, no charges would appear on the year end accounts if it had not undertaken the service.
    10. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £15 compensation for lack of communication and £15 for the incorrect information provided at stage 1.

Events after the completion of the internal complaints procedure

18. On 19 January 2023, the landlord sent an urgent request to book a survey of the fire doors in the block because the property manager had discovered that the doors did not open or close as they should. The property manager and fire safety surveyor assessed the fire doors on Monday 23 January 2023. The survey identified eleven corridor fire doors that required adjustments. The survey email did not identify any fire doors that had to be replaced.
19. On 4 July 2023, the landlord sent an internal email to determine if there had been any resolution to the billing of communal electric. Throughout the email chain there was reference to having chased the energy broker and supplier to no effect. There was also reference to obtaining the meter numbers in the attempt to obtain a bill.
20. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2023. She asked how the landlord intended to apportion the £13,000 it said it was going to refund the residents. She also highlighted a hole in the communal door leading to the carpark. The landlord responded on 25 July 2023 advising the residents would receive a credit of £280.94 for the period 2013-2016. It also informed her that the replacement door had been ordered.
21. The landlord’s notes dated 22 August 2023 indicate that 7 of the wooden fire doors needed to be replaced as soon as possible.
22. The landlord sent a number of internal emails on 18 and 19 October 2023. It said it was unaware of what exactly the solar panels were contributing to in terms of energy in the building.
23. The landlord held a meeting with the residents of the block on 8 February 2024. It advised that the new electric meter operating agreement had yet to be signed. In addition, it said that an energy contractor would be attending to establish what energy the solar panels were generating and where it was being used. It also informed the residents that work to replace the doors was going to begin on 29 April 2024.
24. Between 21 February 2024 and 20 March 2024 there were a number of emails between the landlord and an energy contractor and meter operator. The emails related to an attempt to have the meters signed over to the new operator from the current supplier.
25. On 13 March 2024, the landlord sent an internal email. It clarified that an unknown supplier had supplied the electricity at the block for the past thirteen years. It had been unable to identify the supplier or ask for historic bills. It was possible that the supplier could contact the landlord at any point and issue a bill for the past 6 years. For this reason, it had continued to charge for the electric to cover the cost of any historic bill. To resolve the situation, it had conducted a test to find the communal supply meter and have it added to its contract with the current supplier. As further protection it was intending to install a smart meter to ensure future bills were based on actual consumption, not estimates.

Assessment and findings

26. Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of service charges sets out that “relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period:
    1. Only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and
    2. Where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard.
27. Section 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 allow leaseholders to obtain information about how their service charges are calculated.
    1. Section 21 provides a leaseholder with the right to request a summary of service charge accounts from the landlord.
    2. Section 22 allows a leaseholder to obtain further information by inspecting accounts and receipts.
28. The lease outlines the services the landlord must provide in relation to the management and maintenance of the building as well as the provision of utilities. These are:
    1. Clause 5.3: Maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and improve the common parts of the building and estate as well as the electrical apparatus in and upon the building and estate.
    2. Clause 5.4: So far as practicable to keep the common parts of the building adequately cleaned and lighted.
29. Through the provision of these services the landlord is allowed to charge a proportion of the incurred costs (the service charge) to the leaseholder. The service charge must be calculated in accordance with the following specific clauses in the lease:
    1. Clause 7.2: the costs associated with the service provision for the accounting year shall be calculated before the beginning of that year in accordance with clause 7.3.
    2. Clause 7.3: the costs estimated by the landlord for the service provision for that accounting year. As well as an appropriate amount to be held in reserve for matters that may result in additional costs that occur after the accounting year or are likely to arise once during the unexpired term or at intervals of more than 1 year.
    3. Clause 7.4: the relevant expenditure included for the service provision will include all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the building and estate including…clause 5.3 and clause 5.4…
    4. Clause 7.5: as soon as possible after the end of accounting year the landlord shall determine and certify the amount by which its estimated expenditure exceeded or fell short of its actual expenditure. The leaseholder will be presented with a certificate of the accounts and shall be refunded any access or have to pay towards the shortfall.
30. The landlord’s recoverable service charge policy states that it will explore what it is paying for services to get an accurate picture of what the services will cost. It will check annually what it charges, against what it actually cost to provide the services. It would then either refund or charge the difference to the leaseholder. It says it will give clear information about what leaseholders are paying for.

Communal electric supply and service charge

31. For an item of cost to satisfy the definition of service charge it must meet the criteria set out in schedule 9 of the lease. If it does not meet the criteria set out in the lease, it is not a service charge and is not chargeable.
32. Schedule 9 states that service charge is a proportion of service provision. Service provision means the sum calculated in accordance with clause 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the lease. The question here is whether the sum charged for communal electric was calculated in accordance with these clauses.
33. When considering the charge for communal electric and clause 7.3 of the lease, the amount charged has to be that which the landlord has estimated is likely to occur in the accounting year. However, it is not known how the landlord came to estimate an annual figure of £6,500 as there has never been a historical bill or supplier projection to use as a starting point or at any other point in the following years. The sum being charged by the landlord has failed to satisfy clause 7.3.
34. In line with clause 7.4 the expenditure must be that which has been reasonably incurred in the provision of communal lighting. As the landlord has never received an actual bill for the communal electric there has never been any expenditure that could be included in the charge. Similarly, it has not been able to accurately conduct its responsibilities in preparing its end of year accounts as required by clause 7.5. Without a communal electric bill, it is not possible to determine if there has been an excess or shortfall in its pre year estimates when setting the service charge accounts.
35. The landlord’s evidence submitted to this investigation shows that it has not complied with the service charge provisions of the lease in the administration of the charge for communal electricity. Over a period of 12 years, it has accumulated a fund in the region of £56,000. This sum has been treated as a reserve fund. However, as the electricity would likely be billed quarterly or yearly the money would not meet the requirements laid out in clause 7.5 and should not have been held in this manner.
36. In December 2020, the resident asked the landlord to explain the charges associated with the communal electric. In September 2022 she asked for an update on the registration of the electric meters and about the sum of money that had built up. In responding to these requests, the landlord should have complied with the requirements of section 21 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Specifically detailing how it calculated the charge and highlighting how it was complying with the provisions of the lease.
37. There is little evidence in the information provided by the landlord to show its efforts in pursuing the meter operator or potential energy supplier to have the issue with the meters and the bill resolved. The Ombudsman specifically requested this information as part of our investigation, however, no information was forthcoming. Given the significance of this issue and the large sums of money involved we would have expected the landlord to have pursued the matter rigorously and be able to provide robust supporting evidence. In the absence of evidence, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s efforts were insufficient both before the resident’s request in 2020 and after it. This has resulted in the issue continuing for an unreasonable amount of time, with a resolution still outstanding. This has caused considerable frustration to the resident.
38. The resident asked, both prior to and in her stage 1 complaint, where the energy generated by the solar panels was used. The landlord has not provided this information. In accordance with the lease the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the solar panels. They should therefore be able to make the information requested available. Not doing so is unacceptable.
39. The landlord could not show that it managed the issue with the communal electric meters appropriately. It is required to manage issues in a timely manner keeping residents informed throughout, which it has not. In preparing the communal electricity part of the service charge the landlord has failed to follow the specific requirements of the lease. It has failed to reasonably estimate the cost as it is not been based on previous usage. It has failed to adjust the accounts for shortfalls or excess payments at the end of the accounting year and has what is in effect a reserve fund when the lease does not allow it to do so. There has been maladministration in the handling of the communal electricity service charge.

The resident’s request to know what was included in the communal cleaning service charge.

40. The resident made enquires with the landlord about the fluctuating monthly charges for communal cleaning. As mentioned earlier in this report the landlord ought to have provided a written summary of the costs incurred under section 21 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Thereafter the resident could make a request under section 22 to see more specific information.
41. The landlord provided little information to us on the actual costs involved in the service charges, which was unhelpful. However, the resident supplied this investigation with the monthly cleaning costs for April 2020 – February 2022. The charges show continual fluctuations month to month. As an example, the cost for:
    1. April 2020 was £165.54.
    2. June 2020 was £325.32.
    3. November 2020 was £164.60.
    4. June 2021 was £197.66.
    5. November 2021 £301.96.
42. Clause 7.4 (a) of the lease allows the landlord to add the costs associated with communal cleaning to the service charge. The resident’s request on 12 December 2020 to understand why the charge fluctuates was reasonable and should have been straightforward to answer. Through its responses the landlord demonstrated uncertain, conflicting, and concerning reasons for the charge. This was a failure to comply with its recoverable service charge policy which states, “We will give you clear information about what you’re paying for”.
43. While the landlord is allowed to add costs that are incidental to the service provision, these must also be reasonable. In the same response on 22 September 2022, it listed a number of incidentals, which included “sat navs” and vehicle tracker units. The reasonableness of which is questionable. When this was queried internally the response was, “who is passing such detailed account information to residents?” When responding to such a query the landlord should follow section 21 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and allow inspection of documents if requested under section 22 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
44. In the stage 1 response the landlord said the cleaning costs varied depending on the cleaning activities undertaken and highlighted that the charge included bulk waste removal. In the stage 2 response it said the cleaning cost varied due to the bulk purchase of cleaning chemicals and acknowledged it had been incorrect about the bulk waste removal. This was confusing and caused further frustration to the resident. She would have benefited from a clear and accurate explanation of the landlord’s charges and calculation methods as recommended in the Ombudsman’s 2020 Spotlight Report on Leasehold Complaints.
45. The lease specifies that any service charge must be connected to the provision of services at the resident’s building or estate. In the landlord’s response on 22 September 2022, it said it calculated the charge as a proportion of the cleaning costs of its properties in the county rather than just the resident’s building. Calculating a charge in this manner is a further failure to follow the terms of the lease, which states that only costs associated with the building or estate can form part of the service provision.
46. Through its different responses to the resident’s request for clarification on the communal cleaning charge the landlord has shown a lack of understanding of the charge. It has failed to provide clear reasoning and has shown that the charges are not solely linked to the resident’s building and estate. It has also shown that certain aspects such as sat navs and vehicle trackers need to be further investigated to decide if their inclusion in the charge is reasonable. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to know what was included in the communal cleaning service charge.
47. The resident has also informed this service that there is conflicting opinion between the landlord and the estate management company on the responsibility for cleaning the outside of the buildings communal entrance doors. While this was not part of the resident’s original complaint, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to inspect the contract document and provide conclusive information on the responsibility for the cleaning specified.

Wider Order

48. This investigation has revealed serious failings associated with the landlord’s administration of the communal electricity and cleaning service charges, which will have affected other residents.  We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures outlined above, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

The replacement of communal doors

49. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure of the building, this includes all communal doors.
50. Under clause 5.3 of the lease the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the common parts of the building and estate. Its repairs policy also states that it will take reasonable care to keep shared entrances, and hallways in reasonable repair.
51. Landlords were and are responsible under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the Order) for ensuring the safety of their tenants and making sure that their properties are fire safe. Landlords must also conduct periodical risk assessments in the communal areas and ensure they comply with fire safety standards. Landlords and freehold owners of residential buildings have a legal duty to ensure that a fire risk assessment is carried out to identify and remove any fire risks and hazards or to reduce these as far as possible.
52. Under Article 17 of the Order, there needs to be a suitable regime to maintain fire safety equipment. This includes fire doors.
53. The landlord’s records show that between February 2019 and March 2024 there were 36 service requests associated with damaged or defective communal fire doors in the resident’s block. However, the landlord has provided little evidence of inspections, surveys, or audits of the doors. It has also not provided any fire risk assessments to show the doors had been deemed in safe working order as required by its legislative obligations.
54. The resident reported that it was shown all of the fire doors in 2021, which at that time were in poor condition. She had been told then that it would replace the doors, but this did not happen. In its stage 1 response on 9 December 2022 the landlord acknowledged that it needed to replace the doors, advising it had raised a work order in October 2022 to have the doors inspected again. The evidence suggests the inspection did not take place until 19 January 2023 when the property manager said, “all fire doors are not working properly. They do not close or open as they should. Fire risk.” A follow up site visit on 23 January found 11 doors that were not opening or closing properly. The landlord has not shown that this work was carried out. In August 2023, its notes show that 7 of the doors in the resident’s block were wooden and needed to be replaced as soon as possible. It completed the replacement of the doors in July 2024.
55. The landlord’s actions were reactive in nature and mainly as a result of the resident chasing progress or service requests from other residents. This is unacceptable. Fire safety must be managed proactively to ensure those measures in place to protect people are maintained in proper working order. The landlord had been on notice for at least 3 years that it needed to replace a number of the communal fire doors, which it acknowledged as outlined above. It has not provided any evidence to show what measures were in place to mitigate the risk of spread of fire.
56. We acknowledge that having to consult residents and have the doors specially made lengthened the timescales. However, at least 2 years had elapsed before the landlord began to seek quotes to replace the doors. While there is no specific timeframe mentioned for communal repairs in its policy, 2 years is an unacceptable timeframe. The landlord allowed an unnecessary and avoidable fire hazard to persist over a prolonged period of time, thus failing to comply with the HHSRS and its legislative requirements. It also failed in its obligations under the lease and its own repairs policy. The delays and lack of action by the landlord have led to a finding of maladministration in its handling of the replacement of the communal doors.
57. The resident told this service that when the work began in April 2024 all doors apart from 2 were replaced. This was an error on the part of the landlord. It had quoted for all doors to come from the sinking fund. The resident states the landlord committed to absorbing the cost of the missed doors itself as the error was its responsibility. It confirmed this in an email on 14 June 2024. It said it would only charge residents as detailed in the original section 20 consultation. The resident asked that we include this in our investigation. While it was not part of the resident’s original complaint, we have made a recommendation to this effect below.

 

Complaint Handling

58. When the Ombudsman finds failings, it is our role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
59. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days. If it needs an extension, it will contact the resident to agree a timescale. In its response it will detail its decision and the details of any outstanding or further actions and how it will monitor those actions. It will acknowledge stage 2 escalation requests within 5 working days. A complaint panel deal with review requests. However, the procedure did not detail the time period for holding a review. This failed to comply with the 2022 Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This has since been addressed by the landlord therefore no order has been made in relation to this point. Following the review, the panel will issue its decision within 10 working days. If an extension is required, it would contact residents to agree a timescale.
60. In both instances the landlord’s complaints responses were going to be late. However, it wrote to the resident informing them of this, which was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s procedure. In the stage 1 response the landlord did not outline whether or not it upheld the complaint, it only provided detail on the complaint points. This was a failure on the part of the landlord and a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. It also provided incorrect information about the removal of bulk waste, which caused frustration to the resident.
61. In its stage 2 response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised and offered £15 for the inaccuracies in its stage 1 complaint and its communication failures. The award of £30 compensation did not put things right for the resident. It did not recognise the considerable time and trouble she had taken bringing all of the issues to the landlord’s attention and pursuing them consistently over the years. It also did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inaction. For these reasons it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

 

Determination

62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The communal electricity supply and service charge.
    2. The resident’s request to know what was included in the communal cleaning service charge.
    3. The replacement of the communal doors.
    4. The complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

63. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from a manager to the resident and other residents in the block for the failures identified in this report. It must ensure the apology meets the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance amended on 17 April 2024.
    2. Pay the resident £800 compensation. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any service charge arrears if any are present. It is comprised of:
       1. £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of the communal electricity supply and service charge.
       2. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request about the communal cleaning service charge.
       3. £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the communal fire doors.
       4. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
64. Within 8 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must refund to the residents of the block all money collected and held for the communal electric for the period the resident has lived in the block up to the start of the calendar year where it appointed the new energy supplier.
65. In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to the estimation of costs and the subsequent service charges to residents specifically related to the provision of communal electricity. The review must be carried out within 16 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
    1. an exploration of why the communal electric service charge failings identified by this investigation occurred.
    2. identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure.
    3. a review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are aware of the correct procedure for the estimation of service charges.
66. In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to the estimation of costs and the subsequent service charges to residents specifically related to communal cleaning. The review must be carried out within 16 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
    1. an exploration of why the communal cleaning service charge failings identified by this investigation occurred.
    2. identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure.
    3. a review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are aware of the correct procedure for the estimation of service charges and what charges can be considered as incidental to the performance of the landlord’s communal cleaning responsibilities as outlined in the lease.
67. Following both reviews, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
    1. The findings and learning from the reviews.
    2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
    3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
    4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation equal to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
    5. A copy of the report should be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.

Recommendations

68. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should write to the residents of the block to confirm dates for future monthly meetings. The landlord should have at least one representative present for each meeting.
69. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should inspect the contract it has in place with the estate management company and decide who is responsible for cleaning the outside of the communal entrance doors to the resident’s building. It should write to the resident clarifying who is responsible, and the frequency of cleaning expected.
70. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should write to the resident confirming that the cost of the communal doors replaced between April – July 2024 will not exceed the costs detailed in the original section 20 consultation.
71. Within 8 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should engage the services of a competent individual or company to find what electricity the solar panels generate and where that electricity is used in the building. Within the timescale identified the landlord should write to the resident and provide the following information:
    1. What the electricity generated by the solar panels contributes to in the building.
    2. What happens if the solar panels generate excess electricity.
    3. What impact does the electricity generated or sold have on the service charge for communal electric.