Southern Housing (202400257)

Background

1. On 1 March 2024, the resident queried what the personal charges were within his service charges. The landlord did not provide a full response. He subsequently raised a complaint on 8 April 2024 and expanded his complaint after receiving the landlord’s stage one response. He requested a comprehensive explanation as he felt there was a lack of transparency in how the rent and service charges were billed. Unhappy with the landlord’s response, however, he has since asked us to investigate. He would like compensation for the inconvenience and frustration he said he experienced.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s rent and service charges query.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent and service charges query.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Reasons

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 have not looked at

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of rent or service charges. A tribunal or court is better placed to consider these matters, given their powers and expertise. Our investigation therefore focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
6. There are matters the resident asked us to consider that have not completed the landlord’s complaint process in this complaint. These are the intercom not working and the landlord’s reimbursement of rent charges on 14 August 2024. As the landlord has not had a formal opportunity to respond, we have not considered these matters.

What we have looked at

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent and service charges query

7. Following the resident’s complaint, in the landlord’s stage one response, it stated the resident was not paying any personal charges. The landlord enclosed its 2024–2025 rent and service charge booklet (issued to the resident in February 2024).
8. The booklet, however, showed that the resident was being charged personal service charges of £17.97pcm. It is unclear why the landlord advised the resident otherwise, despite the booklet evidencing costs. The booklet set out that personal service charges were previously described as non-eligible service charges. These were costs not relating to communal areas. It would have been helpful for the landlord to highlight this to the resident.
9. This was a missed opportunity to provide a clear explanation and resolve the resident’s query.
10. The resident escalated the complaint, seeking a comprehensive explanation and transparency in how rent and service charges were billed. In its final response, the landlord understood that the resident wanted it to explain the billing process for rent and service charges.
11. The landlord explained how it set service charge budgets and reconciled these against actual accounts. This was helpful context. It also said it planned to change how it set service charges.
12. The final response did not comment on the resident’s rent, however. We note, a week before the final response letter, the landlord had separately written to the resident about a rent review it had completed. This did not negate the need to respond to his rent query within the complaint response. The landlord could have at least referred the resident back to the earlier communication.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its response to the resident’s query was delayed and offered £40. In its final response it increased this by a further discretionary £50. This was proportionate redress for the delay at that stage, but the resident was still no clearer on whether he did pay a personal charge and why. The information he received was conflicting.
14. The resident told us he remains unsure about the charges. We recognise the resident’s escalation request was broad, however if the landlord was unsure what the complaint was about it should clarify this. The resident told us he wants someone to explain everything to him, so he knows exactly where his money goes. In our view, the landlord could have done more to support him with this.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

15. In its acknowledgement letter, the landlord stated it would issue its stage 1 response on 13 April 2024. This date was before it sent the acknowledgement letter and therefore inaccurate. The landlord likely intended to refer to 13 May 2024, which was when it issued its complaint response. Even on this basis, the response was issued outside the landlord’s policy timeframe of 10 working days from acknowledgement.
16. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 26 June 2024. The landlord issued an interim acknowledgement on 1 July 2024. It sent the formal acknowledgement on 8 July 2024.
17. The resident said the landlord initially said it would respond within 10 working days. The landlord did state this. However, this referred to acknowledging the escalation request, not providing its final response. The landlord’s policy states it has 5 working days to acknowledge escalation requests and confirm understanding and desired outcomes. It is unclear why it referred to a 10-working day timeframe.
18. In its escalation acknowledgement, the landlord stated it would issue the final response by 5 August 2024. It later extended this deadline. The resident’s confusion and frustration about this extension was evident by the emails he sent chasing the landlord for the reasons for the delay.
19. Our Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to explain the reason for extensions and provide revised timeframes. The landlord complied with these requirements.
20. The landlord issued its final response on 20 August 2024. This was earlier than its revised target date of 3 September 2024.
21. The landlord failed to comply with its complaint policy. It also failed to recognise or address these failings within its responses.

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.