Southwark Council (202426090)

Background

1. The resident queried his service charges on 19 December 2023. He said the electricity charge was significantly higher than in a similar block and queried charges for pothole repairs. After limited responses from the landlord, he raised a formal complaint. As he could not resolve the issue with the landlord, he asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s queries relating to his service charges.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its response to the resident’s queries.
   2. The landlord is responsible for maladministration for its complaint handling.

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

Reasons

4. 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries

5. After receiving the breakdown of his service charges for 2022/2023, the resident requested further clarification on 19 December 2023. He queried why one block had electricity costs of £10,984.49, while the other block had costs of £7,937.68. He sought an explanation for the discrepancy because the blocks were similar and had similar layouts.
6. He did not receive a response, but the landlord told him on 15 January 2024 and 9 February 2024 that it had forwarded his queries to the relevant teams. As he continued to receive limited responses, the resident made a formal complaint on 19 February 2024. We note that this was 2 months after he had sent his queries and the delay prompted him to complain. Had the landlord communicated more effectively, the formal complaint may have been avoided.
7. After receiving his formal complaint, the landlord reviewed the 2 blocks on 14 March 2024. It said the difference in electricity costs was because one block had 2 meters charged to it, while the other block had 1 meter. It acted reasonably by requesting internally for the meters to be inspected and by seeking clarification about which meters supplied the resident’s block.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2024 and apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with the service he received. It said it had provided a full response to the resident on 19 December 2023 and a further email on 2 February 2024 which answered his queries. We have not received a copy of this email so have been unable to assess the reasonableness of this response.
9. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 29 May 2024, as he said the landlord’s response related to another property he owned. This meant the landlord had not addressed the concerns he raised about the relevant property, which would understandably cause frustration for the resident.
10. In June 2024, the landlord continued to seek advice internally about the queries the resident first raised in December 2023. This showed a significant delay in the landlord resolving the resident’s queries. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2024 and upheld the complaint for the delays and the incorrect stage 1 response.
11. For the electricity cost discrepancy, the landlord explained that one block had 2 meters charged to it. It said the other block had only 1 meter, which accounted for the difference in costs. It confirmed that it had requested an inspection of the block to verify this. While it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange the inspection, it had previously said it would arrange this internally in March 2024 and it is unclear why there had been no progress with its investigations.
12. For the resident’s concerns about the pothole repairs, the landlord explained that the first order was a temporary make-safe for dangerous potholes. It said major works were taking place on site, so a full repair could not be completed before those works finished. It raised a second order to complete the repairs, and a section of the estate road was fully resurfaced once major works had progressed. This was a reasonable explanation from the landlord; however, it should have taken steps to obtain this information sooner, and we have not seen evidence of this.
13. The landlord continued to chase internally for further information about the meters, as it said it could not yet answer the resident’s questions. It said it would email him once it received the information. The landlord later confirmed internally that it had provided all available meter readings for the block and that there was only 1 meter. The resident reiterated his queries on 18 July 2024 about why the electricity costs were £3,000 higher than the other block and was unhappy the landlord had been unable to explain the difference.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and agreed there was a difference in the electricity costs, which it was seeking to explain. It subsequently raised an order for the electricity meters to be identified, photographed and read. It also discussed internally that a project had taken place on the estate and considered whether a contractor used the landlord’s electrical supply.
15. The latest update we have seen is an email from the landlord to the resident on 13 February 2026. It said it had visited both blocks and found what it believed to be meters at each block. After reading the meters, it concluded that the energy consumption at both blocks was comparable. It said it was continuing its investigation into the resident’s charges.
16. We have asked the landlord for further information during our investigation, as the resident sought clarification about the pothole repairs and a timeframe for resolving the electricity discrepancy. However, the landlord has not responded.
17. Based on the evidence, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s concerns about the electricity discrepancy in a more timely and reasonable way. The resident first raised his query on 19 December 2023, yet the landlord is still investigating the issue. While the landlord has responded and attempted to address the concerns, it is unreasonable that it has not provided clear answers. The landlord has not offered any compensation and we consider compensation reasonable, given the inconvenience caused by the delays. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. We order the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation, provide a timescale for when it expects to conclude its investigation into the electricity discrepancies and address the resident’s outstanding concerns about the pothole repairs.

Complaint handling

18. The resident raised his complaint on 19 February 2024. The landlord said it acknowledged the complaint on 21 February 2024 by email, but we have not seen evidence of this. It said it provided a holding response on 11 March 2024 and extended the response deadline to 22 March 2024.
19. The landlord subsequently issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2024. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) says stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement. If a landlord cannot meet the timescale, it must request an extension before the deadline expires. The landlord should have issued its stage 1 response on 6 March 2024, and it did not extend the deadline until 11 March 2024. It therefore acted unreasonably in failing to update the resident in line with the required timescales. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day, and the landlord has said it acknowledged this on 22 March 2024, but we have not seen evidence of this.
20. The landlord told the resident on 29 April 2024 that it could not meet the stage 2 timescale and aimed to respond by 15 May 2024. By 17 May 2024, the resident had to chase the landlord as he had not received a response. The landlord allocated the stage 2 response on 30 May 2024, and the complaint handler introduced themselves on 3 June 2024. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2024. The Code says stage 2 complaint responses should be provided within 20 working days of acknowledgment. The landlord was delayed by 36 working days.
21. The landlord caused unreasonable delays throughout the complaint process. While it provided some updates about the delays, these were limited and the resident still had to chase. The landlord has offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling. Given the delays and inconvenience caused, we do not consider this sufficient. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and order it to pay the resident a further £50. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been afailure by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged it.

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.