The Guinness Partnership Limited (202302753)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302753

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The administration of the resident’s service charge account, quality of services and service charge queries.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

This complaint was submitted to the landlord and Ombudsman as a group complaint which includes a total of 36 residents. The residents include single and joint shared ownership leaseholders who live in apartments within the same housing scheme. The total number of households is 24. The residents are represented in this complaint by one of the leaseholders at the scheme who will be referred to in this report as “the lead complainant.”
On 27 July 2021, the residents submitted a complaint to the landlord about issues with the communal lighting. The lead complainant explained the lights were on 24 hours a day. The landlord did not log this correspondence as a complaint and instead raised a repair appointment for 30 July 2021.
On 9 February 2022, the residents submitted an additional complaint to the landlord about the communal lighting. They explained they either have no lights or, the lights were on 24 hours a day, which was wasting electricity.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the residents in relation to the communal lighting on 4 March 2022. It explained that the issue with the external communal lights had been an ongoing issue. The landlord stated it had reported the issues with the lights to the developer of the scheme, which eventually resolved the issue after carrying out several repairs. However, following this, a different issue with the communal lights was reported, which involved the communal lights remaining turned on all day.
On 29 March 2022, the residents submitted an additional complaint to the landlord about service charge account queries. The complaint included queries about service charge calculations, the landlord’s cleaning contract, cost of the communal area cleaning and window cleaning. In addition, queries were raised about the door entry system, automatic open vent system, TV aerials and management fees.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response in relation to the service charge queries to the residents on 13 April 2022. It stated in its response that it engages with a selection of residents when renewing a contract and providing figures for the annual cost of cleaning. In addition, the landlord confirmed that there were no shared service costs with the neighbouring housing development, which was queried. It also stated the management fee charged was correct and explained that there was a service charge for the door entry system and TV aerials as an estimated cost to ensure that there were funds available to cover any potential future repairs within the year ahead.
On 29 April 2022, the residents requested their complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The escalation request was in relation to the service charge queries and also the communal lighting. As part of the escalation request, the residents asked why the cost of the window cleaning was so high and why the cleaning contract was renewed with the same company. They also stated that the automatic ventilation system had several faults, even though it was fairly new, and explained the service charge figures provided by the service charge team did not correspond with the letters. Finally, they also requested a copy of the sound proofing certificate for the building and stated that the communal lights were on all day every day.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in relation to the communal lighting on 26 May 2022. It explained some of the external lights around the courtyard area were on whilst others were off. The landlord stated it had raised the issue with its repairs team and, on several occasions, for the timer to be reset so that the external lights were switched off during the daytime. The landlord confirmed its electrician attended on the morning of 26 May 2022 and reprogrammed timers again to resolve the issue.
On 14 June 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the residents in relation to the service charge queries. The landlord stated in its response that its customer liaison officer had previously carried out an inspection of the estate, to identify any issues and inspect the standard of cleaning. However, it explained that the inspection was cut short due to its customer liaison officer being approached by multiple residents. In response to the residents’ request for a copy of the sound proofing certificate for the building, the landlord explained its developer confirmed the building had passed all tests required for building control and NHBC new homes warranty. However, it explained that the developer was not obliged to provide a copy of the certificate. The landlord also acknowledged that the cost of window cleaning was high and confirmed that it had renegotiated the cost to a lower price. Finally, the landlord explained the faults with the automatic ventilation system and confirmed that it was tested recently and was in working order.
On 26 February 2024, the residents submitted a further complaint to the landlord about additional service charge queries in relation to the building insurance and sinking fund. They queried the sinking fund figure and also queried why there had been a significant increase in the building insurance costs for the financial year of 2024/2025.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the residents in relation to the sinking fund and building insurance queries on 2 April 2024. It explained that the letter previously sent to residents incorrectly stated that the sinking fund balance was £30946.40. However, the landlord confirmed that the correct figure was £35411.36. The landlord apologised for the error and explained that a revised letter with the correct figure would be sent out to residents. In response to the residents’ query about building insurance, the landlord explained the tender process and explained that the cost of the building insurance had increased because it was previously subsidising the costs but could no longer do this because of rising building costs and increased insurance rates.
On 6 April 2024, the residents requested their complaint about the sinking fund and building insurance to be escalated to the next stage. They queried the sinking fund figure again and explained that it should not be more than £19000 per annum. In addition, the residents also queried why they now have to contribute to 100% of the building insurance costs when they were shared owner leaseholders and do not own the whole of the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the residents on 20 May 2024. It explained that it had reviewed the sinking fund figure and confirmed that the previous figure was incorrect, and the actual costs now amount to less than £19000 per year with a monthly contribution of £24.10 per property. In addition, the landlord explained that the building insurance premium is for the landlord’s leasehold and shared ownership properties, which are approximately 8000 properties, and stated that the cost per property for building insurance was correct. It also acknowledged that there were errors with its complaint handling and explained that its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were late. The landlord offered the lead complainant £75 compensation for its complaint handling errors and £25 compensation for the inaccurate information it provided in relation to the sinking fund.
After the Ombudsman requested the landlord’s file on the complaint, on 23 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the lead complainant and acknowledged that there were delays with its complaint handling for its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses relating to service charge queries which were issued in March and June 2022. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the delay.
The residents remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted their complaint to the Ombudsman. They stated that their desired outcome was for service charge errors to be fixed and refunded and the landlord’s services to be more robust.

Assessment and findings

The administration of the resident’s service charge account, quality and services and service charge queries.

Scope of Investigation

This report will consider whether the landlord sufficiently responded to the resident’s query regarding the service charge. Disputes about the level of rent or service charge or level of increase are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). This is in line with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website).Therefore, the Ombudsman will not respond to the resident’s concerns about the level of service charge, including whether the service charge was too high.
The residents have raised that their lease agreement is silent about whether both the landlord and shareholders are both responsible for paying building insurance costs. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make binding decisions as to the interpretation of the wording of a lease agreement between a landlord and leaseholder. This is something which is more appropriately handled by a court of law. The residents may wish to seek legal advice on this matter if they wish to pursue it further. However, the ombudsman has considered the landlord’s communication about the buildings insurance and whether this was timely, clear and accurate.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s service charge policy explains that its service charges include the cost of all legally eligible expenses attributable to a scheme or home to the extent that these costs are not deemed to be included in the rent paid in line with the tenancy agreement or lease. The policy also states that the landlord will account for the cost of all chargeable services provided to the property. It explains that it will do this at scheme or block level, as appropriate, to allocate the cost between the properties that receive the service.
The service charge policy also states that costs covered by service charges include, but are not restricted to, the maintenance of communal areas, e.g. windows and gardens, the cost of facilities in communal areas, e.g. lifts and door entry systems; and fees for professional services such as management fees, account audits or certification.
The policy also explains that the landlord may include an amount to be placed in a sinking fund to contribute to the cost of future major works, where the tenancy agreement or lease requires it to do so.
The landlord has provided details on its cleaning specification with its cleaning contractor. The specification includes a weekly visit to complete the following:
1. Hard and soft flooring – Fully clean, left free from dirt, dust, removable marks & build up on skirting boards. Free of litter.
2. Skirting boards – Clean and free from dust, smears, dirt, chewing gum and removal of marks, spills or scuffs.
3. Walls and wall heaters – Clean and free from removable marks, chewing gum, dirt, or graffiti.
4. Doors and frames – Viewing panels clean and smear free with no dust, marks, graffiti or chewing gum. Frames and panel are free from dirt, marks and chewing gum. Closers are clean and free from excess oil, dirt, or grime.
5. Entrance mats – Clean with hard brush and hoover, leaving free from loose debris, litter, dirt, and dust.
6. High level – Fully clean and free from build-up, body fats, dirt, dust, smudges, fingerprints & stains up to (2 metres). Above (2 metres) using appropriate cleaning tool – Extendable pole for cobwebs and light fitting covers.
7. Lifts- Fully clean and free from build-up, body fats, dirt, dust, smudges, fingerprints & stains.

Assessment

Queries about the renewal of contracts and sound proofing.

In March 2022 and April 2022, the residents contacted the landlord about multiple service charge queries. 2 of the queries included how the landlord handled the renewal of contracts and a request to see a copy of the sound proofing certificate related to residents’ building.
The landlord responded appropriately to the queries in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, which were sent in April and June 2022. In response to the resident’s query about how the landlord handled the renewal of contracts, the landlord explained that when it renews a contract for a service, it engages with a selection of residents who have expressed that they would like to be more engaged with landlord activities. It stated that it had recently renewed contracts for garden maintenance and asbestos work. The landlord also provided details of how the residents could join its engagement community if they wanted to do so. In addition, the landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had checked the status of the soundproofing for the building with the developer, and the developer confirmed the building passed all the required tests for building control and National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty. However, the landlord explained its developer was not obliged to share a copy of the soundproofing certificate with the resident.
The landlord’s response to both of the above queries was reasonable in this instance, as the landlord explained the renewal contract process and how residents could join the panel to be involved in this process. In addition, the landlord confirmed that the building had passed the relevant sound proofing tests, and its response was correct that it was not obliged to provide a copy of the soundproofing certificate as there is no obligation for a landlord to provide this to a resident.

Queries about neighbouring housing development and percentage contributions to specific services.

The residents also submitted other queries to the landlord which included a query about whether the residents’ service charge for their building were shared with a neighbouring housing development. Also, the residents asked what their service charge percentage contribution was to specific services, including the car parking fund, refuse management, landscaping, and general estate.
The landlord responded to both queries, and it confirmed that the residents do not share any service charges with the neighbouring housing development. The landlord also provided the residents with a spreadsheet, which included a breakdown of residents’ apportionment percentage for each service for which they are charged.
The landlord responded appropriately in this instance and answered the queries raised by the residents. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to provide a further response to the above queries.

Cleaning contract, quality of communal area cleaning, cost of cleaning and window cleaning., and inspection by landlord’s customer liaison officer.

The residents also raised additional queries about cleaning, which included the quality of cleaning within communal areas, the renewal of the cleaning contract and the cost of the building’s window cleaning.
In response to the residents’ queries about the cleaning contract and the quality of cleaning within the communal areas. The landlord explained to the residents that the current cleaning contract at the time had been in place since 2019. It stated that it regularly completed inspections to ensure that the service being provided was consistent and in line with its cleaning specifications and confirmed that the last few inspections prior to the contract renewal were acceptable, and no concerns were identified. Therefore, following this, the landlord agreed to extend the cleaning contract with the same provider. The landlord also explained that the contract was awarded to the cleaning company after an extensive procurement exercise, and it confirmed that all residents were written to under section 20 to consult them about the contract. The landlord’s response about the cleaning contract renewal was reasonable, and it followed the appropriate steps prior to renewing the contract.
The Ombudsman recognises the residents raised concerns they were unhappy with the quality of the cleaning within the communal areas. Prior to the concerns being raised, the landlord arranged for its customer liaison officer to walk around the housing development with some residents to identify if there were any issues. This was a reasonable step taken by the landlord to help identify if there were any cleaning issues. However, the landlord explained that the inspection was cut short due to its customer liaison officer being approached by too many residents. The Ombudsman has reviewed a copy of the report from the inspection, and it showed some small cleaning issues within communal areas, including a small amount of debris on the entrance mats and a small amount of dust on skirting boards. In addition, the lift floor was slightly marked, and the mirror had streaks. These areas were marked as amber in the inspection report. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s cleaning contractor attended regularly to complete a general clean and occasionally to complete a deep clean. However, the landlord has not confirmed which steps it took following the inspection. Therefore, due to this and considering the previous inspection was cut short, it would be appropriate for the landlord to rearrange a further inspection to identify if there are still any cleaning issues within the communal areas, so these can be resolved.
In response to the residents’ queries about the cost of the cleaning and window cleaning. The landlord explained in its response sent in April 2022, the annual cleaning cost across the 3 separate blocks was around £7876.92. It also explained that it would look into the overall cost of the cleaning. In addition, the landlord also acknowledged in its stage 2 response sent in June 2022 that the cost of the window cleaning, which included 6 communal windows, was high. It explained that the initial quote for a quarterly visit for window cleaning from its contractor was £288. However, the landlord renegotiated the price with its cleaning contractor to £18 per visit. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s queries about the cleaning costs and took reasonable steps in resolving the resident’s concerns by renegotiating the window cleaning cost with its contractor. If the residents are still unhappy with the level of the service charge for the cleaning, they will need to contact the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) referenced above.
Going forward it is recommended that the landlord continues to carry out regular inspections to ensure that the standard of cleaning is adequate. The landlord should inform residents of the outcome of such inspections such as by posting details on a communal notice board within the block. The landlord should also ensure that residents are able to raise any concerns about the standard of cleaning and other services to the landlord. This could include writing to all residents to remind them of how to contact the landlord to report any concerns.

TV aerials, door entry system and automatic opening vent (AOV) system

The residents also raised queries about the door entry system and TV aerials. The initial query was why there was a service charge cost for the door entry and system and TV aerials when there had been no issues with them. There were also queries about multiple repairs to the automatic ventilation system.
In response to the residents’ initial query, the landlord explained the door entry system and TV aerials service charge costs were estimated costs, to ensure that there are funds available to cover any future repairs in the year ahead. The landlord confirmed that if no repairs were required to the door entry system and TV aerials, the service charge would be amended when the actual costs were completed and issued. The landlord’s response was reasonable in relation to this query. It is common practice for landlords to estimate the costs of repairs based on past years’ costs and amend the service charge at the end of each year when the actual repair costs are known.
The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that there was an error with the breakdown of costs in a letter it previously sent to the residents about service charge costs. It explained that the letter it sent did not include communal maintenance costs within the breakdown. Following this, the landlord explained it had identified a further discrepancy and stated it was investigating this. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request additional information about the further discrepancy and whether it was resolved. However, the landlord failed to provide the relevant information.
The landlord took reasonable steps by resolving the initial error. However, it is concerning that there were multiple errors identified by the landlord on the same service charge costs letter. In addition, it is also unclear whether the further discrepancy has been resolved. Considering this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the residents compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service charge errors.
Finally, in response to the residents’ query about there being multiple repair call outs for the AOV system. The landlord explained that there had been a number of callouts to reset the systems in different blocks. It stated the repair call outs were due to the following reasons:
1. The ‘break glass; units in all three blocks had been broken and were replaced and reset.
2. The AOV system panel was flashing, but no fire/vents were open, and the panel was beeping in one of the blocks. The landlord’s contractor reset the panel.
3. The AOV system panel was beeping and flashing and was reset by the landlord’s contractor.

The landlord explained that no further issues had been reported with the AOV system, and it confirmed that its customer liaison officer carried out a test of the AOV system on their last monthly inspection and there were no faults identified. The landlord responded appropriately to the query about AOV system repairs and, as the landlord has confirmed that the system was in working order, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to replace the system. If there are any further issues with the AOV system, residents should report these to the landlord’s repairs service and the landlord should respond in line with its repairs timescales.

Management fee

The residents also raised that they were unhappy with the cost of the management fee. The landlord responded to the concerns raised in it stage 1 complaint response and explained that any increases in charges for rents and services follow strict governance and were thoroughly checked to ensure that the cost is fair.
Although the landlord initially stated that the management fee amount charged was correct, after this, the landlord identified errors with the management fee figure and wrote to the residents. It is unclear when the error was identified by the landlord, as the copies of the letters sent by the landlord correcting the errors were not dated.
The initial letter sent to the residents about the management fee error, explained that the landlord normally sets the management fee paid by residents at 15% of the actual cost. However, it stated in the previous letter sent, they charged it as a fixed charge at £225. The landlord confirmed it had amended the residents’ service charge actuals for the financial year 2022-2023 and set the management fee at 15% of the actual cost and confirmed that the fee would be around £55.81. The landlord acted correctly in fixing the error and writing to the residents to confirm the amended fee.
After the landlord took steps to fix the initial error identified with the management fee, it identified a further error. The landlord explained in a second letter sent to residents that it failed to split the actual cost of the management fee by square footage. It confirmed that it had amended the management fee and sent out a new service charge statement to the residents, which appears to be sent in October 2023. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to send out the correct amended management fee figure on its first attempt. It is concerning, that the landlord made multiple errors on the same service charge fee and the Ombudsman recognises that this would have been distressing for residents. This has been considered when assessing compensation, as discussed further below in this report.

Communal lighting

The residents raised concerns in an additional complaint about issues with the communal lighting within external parts of the building. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that the issues with the lights had been long-standing issue and confirmed that the most recent report about the lights was December 2021.
The initial issue the landlord identified with the lighting was when it rained the floor lights located in the courtyard would short circuit, which resulted in the lights in the bike shed and bin store also turning off.
The landlord reported the initial issues with the lights to the developer, and the developer attended on several occasions to try to fix the issue. However, this did not resolve the issue, so the developer replaced the lights on the floor with light posts. But the light replacement also did not resolve the issue. Therefore, due to this, a breaker was installed to help prevent the bike shed and bin store legs from tripping. The landlord’s developer installed the breaker in February 2022, and this resolved the issue with the lights short-circuiting. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been difficult for the residents to deal with the ongoing problem with the lights. However, the landlord acted appropriately in this instance by reporting the issue to the developer, and different repairs and replacements were completed to resolve the issue. It is acknowledged that a repair may not always work on the first attempt, particularly if it is unclear the main cause of the issue and different repairs may be needed to fully resolve the problem. Therefore, the landlord responded appropriately regarding the initial issue regarding the lights.
Although the landlord resolved the initial issue with the lights. A different issue with the lights was reported shortly after, which resulted in the external lights remaining turned on in the daytime but turned off during the night. The landlord responded to the report and attended on 7 February 2022 to reset the timer, which it confirmed should have resolved the issue and resulted in the lights turning on at 5pm each day and turning off at midnight. The landlord’s initial reset of the timer failed to resolve the issue and resulted in some lights being on and some being off. The landlord eventually repaired the light problem on 25 May 2022. The length of time to resolve the issue was unreasonable, particularly as the repair issue was not complicated. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to resolve the second light issue much sooner than it did. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the residents as they were without communal lighting at night for a prolonged period of time. The landlord should pay compensation to the residents in view of this as detailed further below.

Sinking fund

The residents received a summary of their service charges for the financial year of 2022/2023, which included sinking fund figures. However, the residents identified that there were some errors with the sinking fund figures and raised this as part of their complaint to the landlord.
In response to the concerns raised by the residents, the landlord looked into the sinking fund figures and acknowledged that the letter sent to residents on 9 February 2024, incorrectly stated that the total reserve fund balance for March 2023 was £30964.40 and stated that the correct reserve fund amount was £35411.36. The landlord apologised for the error in its stage 1 complaint response issued in April 2024 and explained that it would send a letter within 10 working days with the revised sinking fund figures. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging and fixing the error. However, it failed to offer the residents any compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord should have given the correct figure in the first instance and the residents should not have needed to contact the landlord to have this corrected.
In April 2024, as part of the resident’s complaint escalation request, they explained they disagreed with the landlord’s calculations for the sinking fund for the financial year of 2024/2025 and asked the landlord to review the figures. The landlord reviewed the sinking fund figures following the resident’s concerns and acknowledged that the calculations were incorrect. It explained that its Homeownership Services team sent a letter to residents on 26 April 2024 with the correct cost for the sinking fund and confirmed that the total cost to residents was now less than £19,000, with a monthly contribution of £24.10 per property. The landlord stated that the error occurred because it had based the calculations on the wrong financial year. The landlord offered the lead complainant £25 for the inaccurate information provided in relation to the sinking fund. Considering there were multiple errors with the sinking fund, the compensation amount offered was not sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors. In addition, the landlord failed to offer the compensation for the error to the other residents who formed part of the group complaint.

Building insurance

In February 2024, the residents submitted a further complaint to the landlord about the building insurance and the cost of the insurance. The landlord responded to the building insurance queries in its stage 1 complaint response sent on 2 April 2024 and stage 2 complaint response sent on 20 May 2024. It explained the tender process for selecting a building insurer and stated it involves the landlord presenting its information to a panel of suitable insurance providers who bid to provide the insurance for the landlord for that period. The landlord explained that it also uses an independent risk and insurance consultant as part of the tender process.
The landlord also explained to the residents that the calculation of the insurance premium was undertaken by the insurance company and is based on the landlord’s housing stock and factors, such as the type and age of the property, location, and tenure. It also stated that the building insurance is only for its leaseholder and shared ownership properties, which was approximately 8000 properties and confirmed the cost it was charging per property was correct. In addition, the landlord also explained why the insurance premium costs charged to residents had increased. The landlord explained that it previously subsidised insurance costs for leaseholders and shared owners to help keep costs low. However, it could not subsidise the insurance premiums any longer because of a rise in building costs and insurance rates and stated that this had resulted in an increase for the residents.
The Ombudsman recognises it must be difficult for the residents having to pay higher insurance costs than they previously did. However, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation about how a building insurance provider was selected and the calculation costs related to the insurance. The landlord does not have full control of these costs as the premium is set by the insurer. Therefore, the landlord addressed the residents’ queries about the building insurance appropriately in this instance. If the residents are still unhappy with the level of service charge related to building insurance and believe it’s too high, they will need to contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) as referenced above.
Overall, the landlord provided a reasonable response to most of the residents’ service charge queries. However, there were several errors identified with the service charge costs and the landlord only noticed these due to the lead complainant raising them. It is also quite concerning that there had been multiple errors with the same service charge fee, such as the management fee and sinking fund. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the administration of the resident’s service charge account, quality of services and service charge queries.
As there have been several errors identified with the service charge figures, the Ombudsman requires the landlord to carry out a review of the residents’ service charge accounts for the last 3 years to identify whether there are any further errors or discrepancies which need resolving. In addition, the landlord’s service charge team should also carry out staff training to help prevent further errors in the future. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay each household £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the service charge errors.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. In this case, there was inconvenience but there was no permanent impact as the landlord resolved the identified service charge errors.

The associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
The Code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In addition, it explains when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure within 5 days of receipt.
The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or actions on its behalf affecting a resident or group of residents. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same complaint definition as the Code.
The landlord failed to log the lead complainant’s complaint submission from July 2021 about issues with the communal lighting as a complaint in line with the timescales referenced in its own complaints policy and the Code. The lead complainant expressed dissatisfaction and provided valid complaint points for his correspondence to be considered as a complaint. Its delay in logging the complaint would have delayed the lead complainant from bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, causing inconvenience. The lead complainant submitted a further complaint email about the communal lighting on 9 February 2022 and stage 1 response was provided on 4 March 2022. An escalation request was then sent on 29 April 2022 and then a stage 2 complaint response was sent on 26 May 2022. Therefore, there were also delays in the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response in relation to the communal lighting. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint handling errors of the communal lighting complaint.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to respond to additional queries that the lead complaint raised in his complaint escalation request sent on 6 April 2024. The resident requested the client bank account details from the landlord, but it failed to respond.
The landlord did acknowledge complaint handling errors for the other complaint responses it issued. It explained that there were delays in it providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses to the resident in relation to the complaint about multiple service charge queries which was submitted on 29 March 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge the errors during the complaints process and therefore instead wrote to the resident in May 2024 apologising for the complaint handling delays and offered the resident £150 compensation.
In addition, the landlord also acknowledged that there were delays responding to the resident’s complaint about sinking fund and building insurance queries. It apologised for the delays in its stage 2 response sent on 20 May 2024 and offered the lead complainant £75 compensation to recognise the complaint handling errors.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord identified some of the errors with its complaint handling and apologised for these and offered compensation. However, it failed to identify the complaint handling errors with the residents’ communal lighting complaint. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the lead complainant an additional £75 compensation for its complaint handling errors and the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as referenced above.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the administration of the residents’ service charge account, quality of services and service charge queries.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the residents for the identified service charge errors. The apology should come from a senior member of staff at director level within the landlord’s organisation.
2. Pay each of the 24 group complaint households £200 compensation for its handling of the administration of the residents’ service charge account, quality of services and service charge queries.
3. Pay the lead complainant and additional £75 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling errors. This amount is in addition to the £225 compensation the landlord already offered the lead complainant in May 2024.
4. Carry out an estate and grounds inspection to identify whether there any cleaning issues within the communal areas. A copy of the inspection report should be sent to the lead complainant and to the Ombudsman. The landlord should make the report available to other residents of the building upon request.
5. Write to the lead complainant and provide a response to his request for the client bank account details.
The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must carry out staff training for its service charge team, to help prevent future errors with the service charge accounts.
The landlord must comply with the above order within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the residents’ service charge account summaries for the last 3 financial years to identify whether there are any further errors with the service charge figures. The landlord should draft a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to this service and the residents.
The landlord must comply with the above order within 12 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord provides the lead complainant with a copy of invoices and receipts from its building insurer for the last 2 years. If the landlord is unable to provide this information it should write to the lead complainant and explain why it is unable to provide it. As the resident has informed the Ombudsman that he previously requested this but did not receive a response.