Vico Homes Limited (202405908)

Decision
Case ID	202405908
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Vico Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident is unhappy that he was having to pay service charges for facilities that he states he cannot use. He raised a formal complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his queries. As he was unable to resolve this with the landlord, he asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s service charge queries and concerns, including that he is being charged an extra £300 a year for services he cannot access.
2. How the landlord handled his complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its response to the resident’s service charge queries and concerns.
2. The landlord made an offer of redress in recognition of its handling of the complaint, which, in our opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries

The landlord did not follow the procedure set out in the tenancy agreement, which required it to consult the resident before varying the charge and to record any agreement in writing. It therefore did not introduce the charge as it should have.
The landlord missed opportunities to give timely updates and failed to follow the resident’s communication request.

Complaint handling

The landlord has acknowledged its complaint handling failings and provided an offer of redress which recognises the delays and distress and inconvenience caused.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by its complaint team. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	Action order The landlord should review the charges the resident paid for the communal services introduced from 8 January 2024. The letter dated 5 December 2023 stated that the weekly charge would be £6.31. It should check what was applied to the resident’s account and refund the charges he has paid relating to the community centre since 8 January 2024. As it did not consult the resident before introducing the charge, it should now carry out its formal consultation process, before continuing to charge the resident for the communal services. It should follow the tenancy agreement, which requires both parties to agree before the landlord introduces a new charge.	No later than 27 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Our decision on the landlord’s complaint handling is based on the landlord’s previous offer of compensation. We would expect the landlord to honour the £155 previously offered and ensure this is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 December 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint via their representative. He said: He is paying an extra £300 a year in service charges for a residents’ centre that he cannot access. He asked to be exempt from the service charge. It is noted that the landlord treated his concerns as an enquiry, rather than a formal complaint.
24 January 2024	The landlord stated that it was responding to the resident’s enquiry but also referred to the 7 December 2023 enquiry as a complaint. It confirmed that: It had spoken with the resident in December 2023 and explained the reasons for the rent charges. It said the communal charge applies whether or not he uses the communal building because it forms part of the rent for his tenancy, and this applies to every tenant in the independent living schemes. The resident said that he had not been told about the communal charges when he signed the tenancy and the landlord apologised for this.
26 January 2024	The resident and his representative were unhappy with the response from the landlord. They contacted the Housing Ombudsman for assistance who advised him to make a formal complaint.
31 January 2024	The landlord provided an acknowledgement to the resident’s complaint. It understood the complaint to be that: He was unhappy with the service charges for his home, specifically that he pays an extra £300 per year for facilities he cannot access.
9 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: The service charges for the community centre are a tenancy related charge and apply whether or not the resident uses the facilities. When the resident signed the tenancy in January 2022, there were no service charges for the community centre as it was closed for refurbishment. It reviewed its records and found no evidence to show whether the resident was informed that the additional service charges would apply once the centre re-opened, so it could neither confirm nor deny this. It apologised if this had not been made clear. It wrote to all residents at the independent living scheme on 5 December 2023 to confirm the centre would re-open on 12 December and charges be applied from 8 January 2024. It did not uphold the service charge element of the resident’s complaint.
12 March 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 via his representative. He said: The landlord should have directed all complaint communication to the representative as previously requested, but the landlord continued to contact the resident. He disagrees with the service charges for the independent living facilities and thinks he should be exempt from paying them, as it is unfair for him to spend £300 a year on facilities he cannot use. He was not told when signing the tenancy that charges would start after the refurbishment. The blanket tenancy charge ignores the resident’s personal circumstances and breaches his rights under the Equality Act 2010. He was offended by the stage 1 letter as he does not choose not to use the facilities, but he cannot use them due to his disabilities. He does not leave his bungalow, except to be taken to medical appointments or family events with assistance from friends and family. He uses a wheelchair that he cannot self-propel, and the facilities are far away, with rough, uneven terrain that makes the journey unviable. To resolve the complaint, he asked the landlord to remove the service charges.
26 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: Its records show the resident’s representative advised it on 8 January 2024 to discuss the complaint directly with the representative due to the resident’s mental health. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset caused and upheld this element of the complaint. It has no records showing whether the resident was told at sign-up that communal charges would be added once the centre reopened. It acknowledged that the resident does not use the facilities due to his disability, however, noted that he could use them with assistance. The centre has ramped access and communal facilities on the ground floor. There is no evidence that it is discriminating against the resident due to his disability. The service charges are tenancy-based charges applied to all tenants. It is prepared to offer the resident a move to a 2-bed bungalow or 2-bedroom ground floor flat that meets his medical needs but does not have the communal service charges. It recognised that it failed to log a stage 1 complaint after the resident’s email dated 8 January 2024 and offered £155 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman via his representative. He said: The landlord did not disclose the service charge when he signed the tenancy agreement, and the charge is an extra £300 a year for something he cannot access due to his physical disability. The service charge should not be mandatory for the resident, and the landlord should make a discretionary decision to remove the charge based on his individual circumstances and disability. The complaint relating to his shower has now been resolved.

What we found and why

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.

Complaint	How the landlord responded to the resident’s service charge queries, including that he is being charged an extra £300 a year for services he cannot access.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

When the resident’s representative referred the resident’s complaint to us, she confirmed that the shower issue had been resolved. We have also seen that, before the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 April 2024, the representative agreed that the issue had been rectified because a new mixer shower had been installed in March 2024.

What we did investigate

The service charge element of the complaint remains unresolved, so we have assessed how the landlord handled the resident’s queries. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to pay rent and service charges. The landlord’s service charge policy states that charges apply when it provides extra or communal services. The policy also explains that some charges may relate to facilities that not every tenant uses and charges may apply where there is use of communal facilities within an independent living scheme (ILS). These documents show the resident is contractually required to pay the service charge.
The resident said that when he signed the tenancy agreement in January 2022, there was no service charge for the community centre because it was closed for refurbishment. During the complaints process, the landlord said it had reviewed its records and found no evidence showing whether the resident had been told that additional service charges would apply once the centre re-opened. It said it could not confirm or deny this and apologised if this was not made clear. In the absence of any records, it does not appear that the resident was advised of the charge until 5 December 2023, just before he raised his formal complaint.
The landlord should have made the resident aware of all charges linked to his property, especially because the centre was being refurbished and the service charge had not yet been introduced, meaning he was paying lower charges. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord may vary the service charge, if both parties agree and this is recorded in writing. This suggests that the landlord needed the resident’s agreement to introduce this new charge, which it did not obtain. The landlord has also provided an itemised list of service charges that referenced costs associated with the independent living scheme. It should have used this information to explain to the resident that charges could apply in the future.
The resident first raised the issue through his representative on 7 December 2023. The landlord replied the next day, acknowledged the contact and confirmed it would pass the query to the relevant team. It was reasonable that it responded promptly, and this early acknowledgement may have reassured the representative and the resident that their concerns would be addressed.
On 8 January 2024, the representative chased the landlord because neither she nor the resident had received any update, and the resident felt anxious about the increased charges. As a month had passed since the landlord’s last contact, it would have been fair for the landlord to provide an update sooner.
The landlord subsequently contacted the resident on 2 February 2024, stating that he would receive an update about the service charges soon, as it was considering an option that might make him exempt. It was reasonable to provide this update, but the landlord should have been proactive rather than leaving the resident and his representative to chase for it.
The representative then had to call the landlord on 16 February 2024 because she still had no contact about the service charge issue. In response, the landlord advised the complaint had been closed, even though neither the resident nor his representative had agreed to this or received an outcome. This understandably caused frustration, which was made worse because the landlord had said previously that it was exploring how the resident could be exempt from the communal service charges, yet we have seen no evidence that it followed up on this.
We note that the landlord issued its complaint letter on 9 February 2024 and then called the resident on 22 February 2024. The resident and his representative said they had not received any communication about the stage 1 response before this call. They were also unhappy that the landlord contacted the resident directly, as they had asked the landlord to communicate with the representative about anything relating to the complaint. We note that after this point the landlord accepted it should have contacted the representative instead. However, it was unreasonable that it did not take the representative and resident’s request seriously and it failed to follow a clear and reasonable communication preference, which led to avoidable distress.
After receiving the stage 2 complaint response, the representative said the landlord had failed to offer a reasonable solution that the resident could accept. They said there was no evidence that the landlord informed the resident at sign-up about the service charge, which meant he could not make an informed decision about accepting it. They also said the landlord had not considered the distance and accessibility issues between the resident’s bungalow and the communal centre. They explained that the offer of alternative accommodation was not acceptable because the resident is happy and settled in the bungalow, and moving would disrupt everything that has been set up for him.
We appreciate the resident’s concerns about the communal centre service charge and the landlord’s view that it can vary the service charge. However, the tenancy agreement requires both parties to agree to any variation and to record that agreement in writing. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord obtained the resident’s agreement. The landlord therefore acted unreasonably and did not follow the tenancy agreement. The landlord has tried to mitigate the situation by offering the resident a move to another property where he would not pay the communal charge. This offer was reasonable for the landlord to make, but the resident did not have to accept it.
Based on all the evidence, we consider the landlord to have acted unreasonably because it introduced the charge without consulting the resident or having written agreement. We have seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident about the additional charges before 5 December 2023, and it should have been clearer about the future charges linked to the independent living scheme.
The landlord has not offered any compensation for its handling of the resident’s service charge queries. We think compensation is appropriate because it failed to follow the lease when introducing a new charge, it did not adhere to the resident’s communication preference and did not keep the resident or his representative sufficiently updated. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £450, which is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has failed in its service and has not reasonably acknowledged or addressed that failure. This compensation recognises the distress and inconvenience that has arisen because of the landlord’s failure to handle the resident’s service charge and his queries appropriately. As it failed to follow the proper process, the landlord should also refund the resident for the communal charges he has been paying since the charge was introduced on 8 January 2024.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Service’s complaint handling code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The resident raised his formal complaint via his representative on 7 December 2023. However, the landlord handled this as an enquiry and responded on 24 January 2024. Even if it was treating this as an enquiry, it should have responded more promptly. It is also important that landlords clearly establish whether a resident is raising a complaint or enquiring about an issue. It should also set out how it intends to deal with the enquiry or complaint, to avoid confusion.
The resident raised his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 28 January 2024, and the landlord provided its acknowledgement letter on 30 January 2024 and then a revised copy on 31 January 2024, as it had misunderstood the complaint points. It was reasonable that it corrected its understanding before proceeding with the investigation.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2024, which was 7 working days after its acknowledgement and within the timeframe set out in the Code. It is noted that the resident and his representative did not receive a copy of this letter until 27 February 2024, but it is unclear what caused the delay. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 March 2024, and it provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 April 2024. This was 10 working days beyond the expected timeframe set out in the Code, it did not explain the reason for this delay which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s application of its internal complaints process caused unreasonable delays for the resident, which would have caused distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord offered £155 compensation for its complaint handling failures. As the landlord has admitted its failings, we have considered whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right. The landlord’s offer of £155 is in line with what the Ombudsman would typically award for the failings identified. We therefore think the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and made an offer of redress which resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Learning

Landlords must clearly distinguish between an enquiry and a complaint. It should confirm with the resident which route is being taken and set out how they intend to respond. This avoids confusion, ensures the correct process is followed and reduces the risk of delays or misunderstandings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

When a resident gives authority for a representative to act on their behalf, the landlord must record this clearly and follow the communication preference consistently. This is especially important where the resident has a vulnerability. Accurate record keeping ensures the landlord responds appropriately and avoids unnecessary distress.

Communication

The landlord should give clear and complete information about all service charges at the point of a resident signing a tenancy agreement, including any charges that are paused temporarily or will apply in future. This helps residents make informed decisions and prevents disputes later on.