Wandle Housing Association Limited (202004305)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004305

Wandle Housing Association Limited

13 September 2021

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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the administration of service charges.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the Neighbourhood Officer.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a flat situated in a purpose-built block (the building).
The building is designated supported housing accommodation for over 55s.

Summary of events

On 11 September 2020 the resident registered a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident said his complaint was about:
1. The Neighbourhood Officer (the NO) had not fulfilled their role during the Covid-19 pandemic to support residents. The resident reported that the NO had been absent and had avoided contact with residents. The resident stated that the NO could have communicated with residents via telephone or written communication however had not done so.
2. The landlord’s administration of service charges had been unsatisfactory. The resident noted that this had resulted in inaccurate charges in relation to communal water, “personal water”, “depreciation charges”, pest control, communal cleaning, grounds maintenance and window cleaning.
3. Despite trying to seek clarification from the landlord regarding service charges it had provided misleading information and had not been clear within its responses.
4. The landlord had provided rebates in relation to some service charges, however all money owed had not been returned.
5. The NO had facilitated the landlord’s “deliberate overcharge of services” by providing misleading information to residents and not consulting with residents regarding changes to their “rent and service charges”.
On 17 September 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord opened its response by confirming that it understood that the resident’s complaint was about:
1. High communal water charges.
2. The NO had not distinguished between social rent tenants and affordable rent tenants when chairing the service charge meetings.
In respect of communal water charges the landlord said:
1. It had been working with its finance team to calculate refunds for eligible residents as set out in its correspondence dated 17 April 2020 and 26 August 2020. The landlord explained that refunds were dependent on the circumstances of each resident based on tenancy type, rent provision and housing benefits.
2. The resident was informed, by email on 17 April 2020, that he was not eligible for a refund.
In respect of affordable and social rent the landlord said:
1. “Service charge [was] the cost of a service and [was] the same irrespective of whether the rent [was] charged an affordable or social rent”. The landlord confirmed that the NO therefore did not distinguish between affordable and social tenants when discussing service charges during the residents’ meeting. The landlord noted that this would only have been relevant if discussing rent setting.
Within its response the landlord noted that the resident had made inappropriate remarks about the NO in an email dated 28 August 2020, suggesting that they had provided misleading information and did not have integrity. The landlord requested that the resident refrain from making similar remarks in the future.
On 18 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to issue him with an “anti-social behaviour warning” in respect of his conduct. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident had made inappropriate comments on 17 September 2020, in front of a police officer, that the NO was “somehow responsible for the death of a resident”.
2. On 17 April 2020 it advised the resident that his communication was becoming difficult to manage and requested that he sent all communication via its enquiry mailbox.
3. On 16 August 2020 the resident sent a message to the NO on their personal Twitter account which was inappropriate. The landlord noted that the police had advised the resident to not contact the NO “directly or indirectly” and “it would amount to harassment and could lead to arrest” if he did so.
4. Despite the police “caution” the resident had not stopped making offensive comments about the NO, including within his complaint dated 11 September 2020.
5. It had responded to concerns which the resident had raised about the NO during the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord confirmed that it had explained that the NO had to modify the way they delivered support to residents.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the letter was a “final warning”, and it would look to take “further formal legal action” if the resident’s behaviour did not cease.
On 24 September 2020 the resident requested to escalate his complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. He did not accept the landlord’s response as it was “illegal for a housing association to overcharge and make a profit for communal water as [it was] not a licensed water supplier”. The resident stated that the charges were “too high” and included an admin fee (18%) which was not permissible.
2. He had been told by various officers that “all tenants” would receive a communal water service charge refund. The resident stated that the landlord should honour this agreement.
3. Other residents had raised concerns regarding the NO’s “competence as [their] Neighbourhood Officer”.
The resident confirmed that he would like to be “interviewed” about his complaint prior to a stage two response being provided.
On 20 October 2020 the landlord provided its stage two response. In summary the landlord said:
1. The 1% Welfare and Reform and Work reduction only applied to rent and not service charges. The landlord confirmed that all corrections to the 1% reduction as per the regulators notice had been applied to affected tenants.
2. It accepted that an 18% admin fee should not have been included when calculating communal water charge refunds. The landlord confirmed that it had recalculated the refunds which would be applied to affected residents’ rent accounts accordingly. The landlord thanked the resident for highlighting the error.
3. Water charges were calculated by its Finance Team based on water bills from the supplier and therefore the NO had no input into calculating the charges. The landlord reiterated that the resident’s comments about the NO were “defamatory and offensive” and requested that he refrain from personalising issues.
4. It was sorry that the resident felt that he had been misled by officers that all residents would receive a refund in respect of communal water charges. The landlord confirmed that, as explained in previous correspondence, it was unable to refund service charges to tenants on an affordable rent charge as the service charges were included in the rent and were not calculated separately.
On 30 October 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage two response. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had not confirmed within its response whether he had completed its complaint procedure and whether he may refer his complaint to this Service.
2. Affordable rent tenants had also been overcharged in relation to communal water. The resident provided figures to demonstrate incorrect charging by the landlord.
3. The landlord should refund affordable rent tenants for the communal water overcharge as tenancy legislation stated, “rents including services charges should be set at up to 80% of local market rate”. The resident suggested that the rents could therefore be lowered to account for errors made.
4. He had been informed that all residents would be refunded in respect of overcharges for communal water and therefore it was unfair that the landlord had not done so.
5. Residents had also been overcharged for “personal water”. The resident noted that he would be writing to the landlord “in due course requesting [that the] error [was] corrected”.
6. While he was “grateful” that the NO had no input in calculating service charges they should have a “grasp of the figures presented” to residents. The resident stated that this was not the case with the HN.
7. He believed that the landlord was responsible for “illegally extracting large amounts of money” from residents “under the guise of service charges”. The resident stated that the landlord was “directly discriminating against the elderly pensioners, including ethnic minority neighbours and those with disabilities, through a policy of deliberately overcharging for services”.
8. He had identified multiple failures in relation to service charge accounting by the landlord including in relation to “personal water, communal TV license, depreciation, communal water, grounds maintenance [and] pest control”.
9. He did not believe that he had made inappropriate comments about the NO. The resident stated that he was raising concerns that in his view the NO was “not a fit and proper person to work with vulnerable elderly people based on [his] dealings with [them] over the last four years”. The resident noted that other residents had similar concerns regarding the NO.
10. He had been falsely accused by the landlord that he had harassed the NO on Twitter.
11. The landlord had falsely suggested that he had been cautioned by the police in relation to comments made against the NO.
12. He had been offered a property transfer however the landlord had withdrawn its offer.
On 4 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord reiterating that the landlord had “deliberately overcharged” residents in relation to service charges. Within his correspondence the resident noted that between March 2019 and April 2020 he had received numerous letters regarding rent and service charges which had all been wrong. The resident asked the landlord to ensure that it acted honestly and professionally in respect of service charges for 2021-22 and requested a meeting for all tenants in relation to rent and service charges before 15 January 2021. The resident noted that the tenancy agreement for the property advised that the landlord must consult with him about changes to his rent and service charge four weeks in advance of any changes.
On 17 November 2020 the landlord responded to the resident setting out that it was only required to consult with him in relation to the introduction of new services. The landlord confirmed that presently it was unable to arrange a meeting with residents due to Covid-19 restrictions, however it would do so when it was safe.
On the same day the resident responded. In summary the resident said:
1. The NO had chaired past service charge meetings where residents had raised concerns. The resident stated that it appeared that the NO had failed to pass on residents’ concerns regarding service charges to the finance team who calculated service charges.
2. His service charge concerns included:
  1. In 2016 a service charge was made for a communal TV licence despite the communal TV having been stolen and not replaced.
  2. The service charge for personal water was excessive and included an 18% admin fee which was not permissible.
  3. The service charge for communal water was excessive and despite all residents being promised a refund this had not happened.
  4. Residents continued to “pay depreciation on capital goods that had already paid for”. The resident cited the example of the patio furniture. The resident noted that the landlord had committed to carrying out a “review of depreciation” however no feedback had been given.
  5. The service charge for pest control was incorrect and residents with affordable rent tenancies were not awarded any refund in respect of the overcharge.
  6. The service charge for cleaning and grounds maintenance had increased despite the landlord stating that the new contract would “achieve savings and efficiencies which would be passed onto residents”.
3. The landlord had not responded to his request to review service charge invoices for the building. The resident stated that the landlord had used the Covid-19 pandemic as an excuse.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a “follow up to review letter”. In summary the landlord said:
1. The water supplier was currently reviewing the water meters at the building as it was suspected that they were not recording water usage accurately. The landlord confirmed that “under the circumstances” a decision was made to “calculate the deduction in line with estimated charges in line with blocks offering similar laundry services”. The landlord advised that once the water meter issue had been resolved it would be happy to review the charges again in line with actual current usage.
2. It would be unfair to apply refunds to residents with affordable rent tenancies as their service charges were fixed.
3. It noted that the resident had raised concerns that the NO had abandoned residents during the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord confirmed that while home visits were suspended, telephone contact was put in place to support vulnerable residents. The landlord confirmed that the NO had resumed visits to the building, while taking precautionary safety measures to protect residents.
4. It noted that the resident was concerned regarding the way in which it had handled concerns regarding remarks he had made about the NO. The landlord confirmed that it was unacceptable that the resident had contacted the NO on their personal Twitter account and it deemed this as “harassment”.
5. It was sorry that its stage two response did not include details of how to escalate the complaint to this Service. The landlord confirmed that the resident was able to refer the complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the administration of service charges

The tenancy agreement for the property sets out the following in relation to rent and service charges payable by the resident:
1. The rent for the property includes – basic rent, heating/ hot water, service charge and water rates.
2. Rent means “the total amount [the resident] must pay”.
3. The amount of rent may change “from time to time under the terms of the agreement”.
4. The service charge is included in the total weekly rent and will be reviewed at the same time as the basic rent.
5. The service charge is a “fixed service charge and is payable as part of [the resident’s] total rent”.
6. The service charge for the service which the landlord provides will not increase by more than the increase in the cost to it in providing the services each year, unless the service changes at any point because of legislation or because it introduces new services after consultation with the resident.
As the tenancy agreement for the property confirms that the service charge is fixed, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that no service charge refund or amendment would be applied to the resident’s rent account in relation to services received. This is because the service charge is fixed at the start of the year, based on an estimate of the service cost for the property for the year ahead. Where the actual cost of the service at the end of the year is higher or lower than the estimate, the charge cannot be changed. The Ombudsman can see that, as set out in paragraph 14, the landlord explained as part of its stage two response that as the resident’s service charge was fixed as part of his rent no refund was due. This was appropriate to support its conclusions regarding the matter.
Where the resident believes that the fixed charge in relation to overall rent is too high he may be able to have it assessed by the First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (the FTT). The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on whether the fixed service charge as part of the net rent is reasonable or not including increases and variations. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge of the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
In relation to water charges, the landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman to demonstrate that it has applied refunds to tenants who have variable service charges and where an administration fee had been applied or where a miscalculation had been made. This is appropriate as the Ombudsman would expect that a landlord take steps to put right mistakes where they are identified. In responding to the complaint the landlord apologised if the resident felt that he had been given incorrect information that he was also due a refund in respect of water charges. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the apology was appropriate, as it had identified that it could have been clearer with the resident regarding the position in relation to water charges. The Ombudsman can see that on 26 August 2020, prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that the resident was not “eligible” for a refund.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the Neighbourhood Officer

In responding to the resident’s concerns, that the NO had failed to fulfil their role during the Covid-19 pandemic to support residents, the landlord explained that the NO had continued to carry out their duties. As set out in paragraph 19 the landlord confirmed that the NO had provided support using telephone contact as home visits has been suspended.
The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident provided any specific details of poor service by the NO in respect of his tenancy during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to provide a general response to the resident’s concerns in this regard. This is because, without specific examples, the landlord was limited in the response it could provide.
The Ombudsman can see that in March and May 2020 the landlord provided updates to residents confirming that in response to the Covid-19 pandemic it was adapting the delivery of the services it provided in line with Government guidance to minimise the risk of spreading the virus. This included explaining that “regular housing services” would be available by “telephone or email” and it was contacting its vulnerable tenants to ensure that they receive the support which they needed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s updates demonstrated that despite the Covid-19 pandemic it was committed to continuing to support its residents, albeit in a different way.
The resident suggests that the comments which he made in relation to the NO’s ability to carry out the role were reasonable, as it was his view that they had not demonstrated that they were competent in the role. While the resident’s view is noted, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to issue the resident with a warning notice in respect of his conduct. This is because, upon assessment, the landlord considered that the resident’s comments were personal and were not reflective of the service which the NO had provided, and he had contacted the NO through their personal social media account. It was also in line with the landlord’s policy on Unreasonable Behaviour which sets out that derogatory remarks, rudeness and inflammatory statements or unsubstantiated allegations will be considered unreasonable behaviour and may result in restricted contact or a warning notice.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint policy which the landlord operated when the complaint was live consisted of two stages. The landlord’s policy does not set out prescriptive timescales in which it must provide a complaint response. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since updated its complaint handling procedure in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, published in July 2020.
The landlord provided its stage one response within 4 working days and its stage two response within 18 working days. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response times were reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes that within its final response the landlord did not set out the resident’s right of referral to the Ombudsman. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory as a resident should be informed of their right to take their complaint to this Service for final consideration. The landlord recognised this within its correspondence dated 8 December 2020, and therefore apologised and confirmed the referral process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s apology was proportionate to the service failure identified, to recognise the impact on the resident and to put things right.
As part of his stage two escalation request the resident requested that the landlord “interview” him prior to issuing its final response. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord acceded to the resident’s request or responded to it. While it would have been best practice to have agreed the resident’s request, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not amount to a service failure. This is because the landlord did address the concerns which the resident had raised within his escalation request, despite the resident not agreeing with its conclusions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the administration of service charges.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the Neighbourhood Officer.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which resolves this part of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the administration of service charges

As the tenancy agreement for the property confirms that the service charge is fixed it was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that no service charge refund or amendment would be applied to the resident’s rent account in relation to services received.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the Neighbourhood Officer

As the resident did not provide any specific details of poor service by the NO in respect of his tenancy during the Covid-19 pandemic it was reasonable for the landlord to provide a general response to the resident’s concerns in this regard, including by confirming that the NO continued to carry out their duties during the pandemic by providing support via telephone contact.
In March and May 2020 the landlord provided updates to residents confirming that in response to the Covid-19 pandemic it was adapting the delivery of the services it provided in line with Government guidance to minimise the risk of spreading the virus. This demonstrated that despite the Covid-19 pandemic the landlord was committed to continuing to support its residents, albeit in a different way.
It was reasonable for the landlord to issue the resident with a warning notice in respect of his conduct towards the NO. This is because, upon assessment, the landlord considered that the resident’s comments were personal and were not reflective of the service which the NO had provided, and he had contacted the NO through their personal social media account. It was also in line with the landlord’s policy on Unreasonable Behaviour

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord failed to advise the resident of their right to refer their complaint to this Service following the end of its internal complaint procedure, the landlord has since recognised its failing and awarded proportionate redress thought its apology. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has taken steps to put things right.
While the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to discuss his complaint prior to it issuing its final response, this does not amount to a service failure as the landlord’s final response did respond to the concerns which the resident had raised within his escalation request.