Southern Housing (202332368)

Background

1. The resident pays a variable service charge. She raised queries about the charges in September 2023 including that the landlord charged her for a full year in 2021-22 despite her moving in part way through the year. She complained the landlord had not responded. She remained dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s complaint process because she felt it had not answered her queries or resolved her concerns about the accuracy of its charges. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaints.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the:
   1. Level of service charges for the financial year 2021-22.
   2. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries and concerns about service charges.
   3. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. The resident’s complaint about the level of service charges for the financial year 2021-22 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries and concerns about service charges.
   2. Complaints.

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

Reasons

5. The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that happened or comment on all the information we reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Service charges for the financial year 2021-22

6. We do not investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges. Part of the resident’s complaint was that she believed the landlord charged her for a full year in 2021-22. As she bought her home part way through the year, the resident felt she should only be liable to pay from the time she bought it. She wanted the landlord to refund the charges she paid for April to June 2021. This is ultimately about the level of the service charge and so we will not investigate it. A court or tribunal is best placed to consider this part of the complaint.

Handling of the resident’s queries and concerns about service charges

7. The resident raised queries with the landlord on 15 September 2023. She asked why some owners had higher charges than others for similar flats. She said the landlord did not appear to be allocating the external managing agent’s (EMA) charges according to the time periods residents bought their flats and that charges for communal repairs and lifts did not appear to reflect actual costs. The landlord acknowledged her queries on 21 September 2023 and said it would respond within 10 working days.
8. The landlord and resident exchanged emails between 29 September and 23 October 2023. The landlord said it had replied to the queries and sent her invoices. The resident disputed it had replied. The evidence suggests the landlord had confused her queries with another resident’s. There is no evidence it replied to the resident in this case. The landlord later acknowledged it had not replied to her.
9. The resident also raised new queries asking for statements of actual costs prior to her purchasing the flat and about electricity charges. Each time the resident emailed, the landlord gave a new timeframe for responding. This meant it responded to the resident’s emails but did not answer her queries. The landlord may have avoided the complaint if it had answered the queries and information requests within the timeframes it gave in its acknowledgements.
10. The resident complained the landlord had not responded to her queries on 3 November 2023. From 13 November 2023 to 1 February 2024, she chased for responses to her queries and complaint, requested further information and asked to meet with the landlord. During the period, the landlord logged a new service request for documents relating to service charges and 2 complaints.
11. The landlord gave stage 1 complaint responses on 9 and 16 February 2024. The responses answered some of the resident’s queries and requests. For example, the response of 9 February 2024 said the landlord had only charged her for services from the time she bought her flat. It also confirmed the landlord did not have an electricity fee sharing agreement with the EMA and that charges for cleaning costs were included in the EMA’s charges.
12. It was reasonable the landlord explained how its service charge year was from April to March and how it applied the EMA’s charges when estimating its service charges. The evidence suggests the resident was comparing the landlord’s charges with the EMA’s service charges for private leaseholders. The charges would be different because the EMA’s service charge year was from January to March and service provision may have been different in the private leasehold blocks.
13. We recommend the landlord provides information to its new residents about arrangements for service provision and charges for the development. This may avoid confusion when residents compare charges with each other and avoid its residents expecting to receive estimates and actual cost information when the EMA issues them to private leaseholders. Doing so may reduce queries to the landlord.
14. It was reasonable the response of 9 February 2024 said the landlord would not provide information on service charges before the resident bought her flat or relating to charges for other blocks. The landlord was only obliged to provide information relating to charges the resident contributed towards.
15. It was also reasonable the landlord sent the resident the EMA’s estimated service charges for 2024 with its response of 16 February 2024. She had asked for it on 1 February 2024 so the landlord provided the information within a reasonable timeframe on this occasion.
16. The response of 9 February 2024 referred the resident to a letter the landlord had sent her on 24 July 2023. It said the letter compared its actual costs with its estimated charges for 2021-22. We asked the landlord for a copy of the letter but it could not find one. This, along with other gaps in the landlord’s evidence, shows it did not have adequate record keeping practices in place at the time.
17. From the evidence seen we cannot conclude the landlord had responded to all the resident’s queries up to 16 February 2024. For example, there is no evidence it specifically addressed her concerns that charges for lifts and communal repairs did not relate to the EMA’s actual costs or explained why service charges may be different for similar flats.
18. On 26 February 2024, the resident told the landlord it had not replied to her initial complaint. She also said she still had concerns about service charges not matching actual costs and asked if the landlord had finalised its accounts for 2021-22 yet. This led the landlord to log another complaint.
19. It gave its stage 1 response on 14 May 2024 in which it apologised for the “long standing issues” with its service charges and communications, and for not responding to the matters complained about. It was reasonable the landlord said it was reviewing its letters and statements to make them clearer when it issued its actual costs for 2023-24. This shows the landlord recognised the way it explained its charges could be improved.
20. It was also reasonable the stage 1 response said it was reviewing its charges back to the start of its ownership. This suggests the landlord recognised there may be issues and wanted to resolve them. The landlord said it expected to complete the review before the end of June 2024 but did not meet this timeframe or keep the resident updated.
21. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 18 July 2024. She said the landlord had still not addressed all her complaint points and had not sent its actual costs for 2021-22 yet. Following this the resident chased the landlord for the EMA’s actual costs for 2023, to issue its own actual costs and address the points she complained about. While the landlord acknowledged her emails and arranged to meet with a group of residents on 3 October 2024, it did not provide direct responses to the resident’s queries.
22. On 20 February 2025, the resident told the landlord it had not escalated her complaint or responded to the issues raised. She also raised new issues about it not responding to queries she raised in October 2024. The landlord escalated the initial complaint and logged a new complaint for the new issues.
23. It gave a stage 1 response to the new complaint on 13 March 2025 in which it apologised for not responding to the queries the resident raised in October 2024. It explained it had struggled to manage the volume of service charge queries since a merger in December 2022. It said the complexity of arrangements at the resident’s development meant it had not been able to finalise its accounts. It attached its provisional costs for 2022-23 and 2023-24 and said it expected to issue its final costs by 31 May 2025. The landlord did not meet this timeframe.
24. It gave its stage 2 response to the initial complaint on 28 April 2025. Again it apologised for its communication and said it would make a refund it promised in October 2024 when it finalised its accounts for the relevant year. This time it said it expected to finalise its actual costs back to 2020-21 by 20 May 2025 before issuing them to residents. It was reasonable it said it would not seek to recover any shortfalls against the charges it had collected. As the landlord had served notices under section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 notifying residents it had incurred costs, it could have asked them to pay any shortfalls.
25. In conclusion, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s queries and concerns from 15 September 2023 within the timeframes it gave. This led the resident to have to chase responses and confusion arose when she raised new issues and complaints. Further delays along with inadequate communication and record keeping meant the landlord answered complaint issues through 4 complaint processes over a period of 14 months (from February 2024 to April 2025). This left the resident unclear which issues it had answered. While it was positive the landlord decided to review its charges back to the start of its ownership, it did not meet the timeframes it gave for doing so and it did not keep the resident updated. The failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she chased for responses multiple times from November 2023.
26. Through its complaint responses, the landlord apologised and offered £220 compensation in total for delays and the resident’s time and trouble. In our view this was not sufficient given the prolonged period of inconvenience caused. Further, many of the issues remained unresolved at after the end of the complaints process because the landlord did not issue its final costs when it said it would.
27. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £500 compensation, inclusive of its previous offers. This sum is in line with our Compensation Guidance and reflects the impact and duration of the failings identified. The landlord must also contact the resident to make sure the outcome of its service charge review, which it issued in February 2026, resolved the queries she had. We recommend it explains how it calculated the £1,115.10 credit arising from its service charge review as it is not clear how it arrived at this amount.

Handling of the resident’s complaints

28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 3 November 2023 and said it would contact her within 5 working days to let her know if it accepted the complaint. There is no evidence it did so and the landlord later agreed it had not dealt with the complaint at the time.
29. The resident’s emails chasing a response and raising further issues led the landlord to log 2 complaints around January 2024. We had also intervened on 31 January 2024 asking the landlord to respond to the resident’s initial complaint. It gave stage 1 responses on 9 and 16 February 2024. We cannot tell if the responses were given within the timeframes required by the landlord’s Complaints Policy at the time. This is because there were gaps in the information provided for this investigation.
30. On 26 February 2024, the resident told the landlord it had not responded to her initial complaint. She also contacted us and we wrote to the landlord again on 4 March 2024. As the landlord had recently given 2 complaint responses, it thought it had dealt with the complaint. It was positive the landlord spoke with the resident on 22 March 2024 to clarify what her outstanding complaint was. However, the landlord could have done so sooner as this meant it took 19 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint.
31. In line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time, the landlord should have given its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It is not clear from the evidence seen why it took 35 working days to give its response on 14 May 2024. The stage 1 response referred to the landlord meeting with the resident on 22 April 2024 which may account for some of the delay. The landlord offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures up to this point. It would have been appropriate for it to have also apologised and explained the cause of the delay since acknowledging the complaint.
32. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 18 July 2024. There is no evidence the landlord responded or acted on the escalation at the time.
33. When the resident chased her escalation on 20 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged it quickly. It was appropriate it apologised for not escalating the complaint sooner. It was also appropriate the landlord said it would log a new complaint for the new issues the resident complained about in her email.
34. The landlord should have given its stage 2 response to the escalated complaint within 20 working days. It is not clear why it took 41 working days to give its response on 28 April 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge or explain the delay in its final response. Positively, the landlord gave its stage 1 response to the new complaint within the timescales required by its policy and the Code.
35. Given the further failures after 14 May 2024, the landlord’s compensation offer was not enough. We have ordered it to apologise and pay £150 compensation, inclusive of its previous offer. We recommend it reviews the failings identified and consider any action it needs to take to prevent similar failings in future.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.