Southern Housing (202412992)

Background

1. The resident contacted the landlord in May 2024 to dispute service charges for the door entry and mansafe systems. The landlord confirmed in September 2024 that the systems did not exist. It said it would reconcile the accounts and refund any payments made towards the systems. The resident escalated the complaint to us in November 2024 because the landlord had not escalated her complaint when requested in October 2024. She wanted the account reconciliation as promised and all payments made to be refunded.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Responses to service charge queries in relation to the door entry and man safe systems.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s responses to service charge queries in relation to the door entry and man safe systems.
4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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.

Responses to service charge queries in relation to the door entry and man safe systems.

5. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 March 2024 about service charges. She told the landlord that the building did not have a door entry system and no one had used the mansafe system. She asked the landlord to explain why the systems were included in the charges. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this query. The landlord could have avoided a complaint being raised about this issue had it improved communications with the resident.
6. The resident raised a complaint on 10 May 2024. She disputed the service charges for the door entry and mansafe system. She said she had raised this in March but had not received a response. She said she wanted a refund of more than £700 already paid. She also wanted the service charge bill to be updated to reflect the changes. The landlord responded on 17 September 2024. It confirmed that the door entry and mansafe systems did not exist at the resident’s property. It did not comment on the resident’s claim that over £700 had been paid. It said it had previously credited the full amounts of £1.67 for 2020-21 and £47.74 for 2021-22. Evidence from September 2022 shows a block charge of £91.24 and a charge of £12.50 for door entry system repairs. The landlord did not explain the difference between these figures.
7. The landlord said it was reconciling all outstanding years and said the resident was due a refund for 2022-23. It said it would not issue immediate refunds because they would be included in the final accounts. It said it hoped to send the accounts by 30 September 2024 and would notify the resident if this was not possible. The landlord did not provide the reconciled accounts. There is no evidence of further contact before the resident requested escalation on 9 October 2024 because she had not heard anything from the landlord.
8. The landlord responded on 21 November 2024. It apologised that it had not issued the end of year accounts as expected. It said it expected to provide the information by the end of 2024. It said there were no incorrect charges in the 2023-24 financial year. It apologised for the prior incorrect charges and said it could not identify why they had been applied. It awarded compensation, which included £25 for failing to communicate the end of year accounts.
9. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings and awarded compensation, the amount awarded was low in consideration of the ongoing issues. The landlord has not provided evidence that it has since issued the end of year accounts. It did not respond to the resident’s claim that she had paid more than £700 for the systems. It also did not explain how previous credits refunded related to the door entry and mansafe systems.

Complaint Handling

10. The landlord’s complaint policy requires acknowledgement of stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It also requires stage 1 responses within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The policy requires acknowledgement of stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of escalation. It requires stage 2 responses within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
11. The resident made the complaint on 10 May 2024 which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. This complied with the complaint policy timescales. The landlord did not provide the stage 1 response until 17 September 2024. This did not meet the timescale of the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord acknowledged this and awarded £125 in compensation in relation to complaint handling and delays. This was in line with our remedies guidance.
12. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 October 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request until 18 November 2024. This did not meet the timescale in the complaint policy. The request for escalation was acknowledged after this service contacted the landlord.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 November 2024. It acknowledged its complaint handling failings and awarded an additional £100 for delays. The landlord acknowledged complaint handling failures throughout and awarded compensation in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore consider there to have been reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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.