Wandle Housing Association Limited (202216151)

Decision
Case ID	202216151
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Wandle Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

The landlord charges the resident a weekly amount. This includes rent and fixed service charges. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February 2022 to notify him the weekly charge would increase. The resident was concerned about the increase. He queried whether the landlord had applied the regulated increase cap correctly.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlords:
1. Response to the resident’s query about how it calculated the service charge increase.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about how it calculated the service charge increase.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord provided the resident with a reasonable response about how it calculated the service charge increase. It appropriately offered the resident a meeting to further discuss the issue.
The landlord did not raise a complaint when it could have. There was a significant delay in the final response. As such we found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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 complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its complaint handling. 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 08 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

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

08 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its complaint handling.

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

08 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should re-offer the resident a meeting to discuss the service charges.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 December 2022	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He had been in contact with it regarding his concerns about how it calculated the service charges increase since March 2022. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s explanation and asked for further details of this.
6 December 2022	We contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 1 response by 15 December 2022. We had opened a case in October 2022 following contact from the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP).
14 December 2022	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It outlined that the resident asked for details as to how the landlord calculated the service charge. The landlord referred to the previous interactions with the resident on the matter, including a letter it sent in July 2022, and a phone call in October 2022. The landlord found it acted in line with policies. It said the regulated 4.1% increase was not applied to the full weekly charge. It only applied to the rent element, not the service charges. The landlord confirmed it had increased the service charges by £5. This was in line with a cap in its internal policy. This was slightly less than the landlord’s cost of providing the services.
5 January 2023	We have not seen the specific reasons for this, but the resident requested to escalate his complaint.
9 February 2023	The landlord sent an internal email asking to progress the escalation after the resident had contacted to see why it had not been done.
13 February 2023	In internal emails, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint.
9 March 2023	The landlord responded to the MP’s enquiry. It said the rent standard for social tenancies only applied to the rent element of the total charges. Service charges were outside this. It provided a breakdown of the charges.
11 April 2023	The resident replied to the MP. He said as he understood it Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) encouraged social housing landlords to keep service charges within CPI+1%. The resident said the calculation value for 2022/2023 seemed to be more than CPI+1%. The resident was concerned about the impact on future years calculations if this one was wrong. He asked the MP to check with DLUHC that the maximum increase for rent and service charge should be CPI+1%.
17 April 2023	The landlord responded to the resident’s email dated 11 April 2023. It replied to the MP with the following. The DLUHC’s 2020 rent standard applied during 2022/2023. This limited rent increases to CPI+1%, but not service charges. DLUHC also requested landlords to ‘endeavour’ to keep service charges within the CPI+1% increase where possible. The landlord stated this was guidance not regulation. The landlord set service charges in line with its service charge policy. It advised the resident could seek independent legal advice or apply to the tribunal.
20 April 2023	The resident sent a reply to the MP. He said he disagreed with the landlord’s response and asked for further calculations. As DLHUC encourages landlords keep service charges within CPI+1%, he asked the MP to ask the landlord to justify the service charge calculations.
26 April 2023	The landlord sent an email to the MP, after receiving the resident’s response. It said it could only reiterate what it had previously advised, however it hoped the following would be helpful. It applied service charges based on the actual cost for the preceding year, rather than uplifting in line with CPI. This was allowed under regulations. The DLUHC says it ‘encourages’ which was not ‘must.’ It offered the resident a face-to-face meeting. It also reiterated that he could seek independent legal advice or apply to the tribunal.
2 August 2023	The landlord sent its final response letter. It said it had responded twice to the MP and was aware they had shared this with the resident. The MP requested it follow up directly with the resident. The landlord believed it sent a final response letter in March 2023. However, it could not find this, and it was aware the resident had called it on 5 July 2023 to request a further review. Therefore, it asked him to take this letter as its final response. The landlord reviewed its previous correspondence on the matter and was happy the information was accurate. It was sorry the resident was not satisfied with its responses. The landlord confirmed it had applied the increases legitimately and in line with regulations. It recognised this can be difficult to explain in writing and offered a face-to-face meeting on 22 August 2023.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked for us to investigate. He said the issue was about the landlord overcharging. Service charges went up by more than CPI+1%. The resident said DLUHC said rent and service charges should be based on CPI+1%. He wanted transparency on pricing. He wished us to: Use information from publications from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ((MHCLG) formerly known as DLUHC) and contact them to seek their approval for the increases. The publications say service charge increases are expected to be reasonable and transparent. Listen to a phone call held between the landlord and the resident on 27 September 2022. Address the landlord’s lack of contact. The resident said he had to chase for responses. Consider how the landlord calculated service charges and the reasonableness of them. As a resolution the resident wishes the landlord to reassess and refund any overpayment. This would include any knock-on effect for subsequent years, which use the previous year levels as a base. He would also like compensation.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s query about how it calculated the service charge increase.
Finding	No maladministration

In line with the Ombudsman’s Scheme, we may not investigate complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of their increase. Therefore, this report will make no comment on this. Rather, we will look at the landlord’s response to the resident and whether it provided an appropriate and reasonable explanation to satisfy that it acted appropriately.
Should the resident seek to challenge the reasonableness of the service charges or the increase, he should obtain independent legal advice. The resident may wish to pursue this via the Courts or the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
The resident said he believed the landlord failed to act in accordance with the regulations set out by DLUHC/MHCLG. He requested that we contact them to seek their opinion. We have not considered it necessary to contact MHCLG, however, as we believe we have sufficient information to independently judge the fairness of the landlord’s actions.
Moreover, the resident wished us to see a transcript or listen to a phone call held between him and the landlord on 27 September 2022. We have contacted the landlord to request this, however it only holds records for 100 days. We have noted the lack of landlord’s notes from this call in our learning section.
The resident clearly raised his complaint to the landlord. Throughout its responses the landlord was clear that the regulated increase cap for social tenancies applied to net rent only and service charges did not come under this calculation. The landlord worked in line with its internal service charge policy when setting the service charges.
The clearest response was in the landlord’s email to the MP dated 17 April 2023 when it confirmed the DLUHC guidance was for landlords to endeavour to keep service charges in line with CPI+1%. It highlighted this was guidance not regulation. The landlord appropriately referred the resident to seek independent legal advice. For completeness it may have been helpful for the landlord to reiterate this clear information in its final response letter. However, it acknowledged it was aware the resident had received a copy of this.
In the final response letter, the landlord appropriately offered the resident a meeting. In conversation with us, the resident said he did not receive the letter in time to attend. He advised he called the landlord to try to rearrange but said he did not receive a call back. We have not seen evidence of this, however we are aware the resident did not attend and so a recommendation of this report is that the landlord arranges another meeting.
The landlord was not required to keep the service charge element of the resident’s weekly charge in line with CPI+1%. Therefore, it was appropriate to advise the resident of this.
The landlord appropriately told the resident the service charge costs exceeded what it was able to charge as per its policy. It increased these to the maximum it could in line with its policy, which was £5. Therefore, it subsidised the service charges for the year 2022/23. It calculated the service charges based on the previous year’s cost of providing the services. It provided a breakdown of its services and their charges. This was in line with its internal service charge policy and not something it was required to do as these are fixed service charges. This provided the resident with additional information to help him understand the charges.
The landlord addressed the resident’s queries, as such we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about how it calculated the service charge increase.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Service failure

The resident was in contact with the landlord concerning his service charges in March 2022. The landlord forwarded his concerns to its service charge team. It said they may take 28 days to respond. We have not seen the landlord responded until 11 July 2022, despite the resident chasing it a number of times. Once the resident received the letter he had further queries and tried to arrange a meeting with the landlord.
The resident approached his MP and us to try to resolve this issue. A formal complaint was raised in December 2022.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise a complaint when the resident chased for a response or at least once the July letter did not satisfy his queries.
Once it accepted the complaint, the landlord sent its stage 1 response in line with the 10-working day timeframe in its complaint policy.
The stage 1 letter contained much of the information which the landlord had already written to him in its July 2022 response. This information had not satisfied the resident’s concerns, therefore it was not customer focussed to reiterate this without trying to explain it in a different way.
The resident escalated the complaint on 5 January 2023. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should have provided its response by 3 February 2023. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 9 February 2023.
We have seen in internal communications on 13 February 2023 the landlord said it had escalated to stage 2, however we have not seen any evidence the resident was notified of this.
The landlord in its final response letter dated 2 August 2023 said it believed it had already provided the resident with one on or around 13 March 2023. We have seen no evidence for this, and the resident advised us he did not remember receiving a response. In the final response the landlord recognised the resident called in on 5 July 2023 to request his case was reviewed. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the resident did not receive a final response in March 2023. We do recognise there was communication between the landlord and the MP during this period.
The landlord should have raised a complaint earlier. Its stage 1 response should have attempted to explain its position in a different way to the letter previously provided. The landlord was slow to escalate the complaint, providing its final response 124 working days late. The fact the landlord was in communication with the resident via the MP has reduced the impact that this failure would have had and as such, we have determined that there was a service failure.
We have awarded the resident £100 for this failing. As the landlord did not apologise or recognise these failings through its complaint handling, we have asked it to issue an apology.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord believed it sent a final response letter in March 2023, however it did not have a copy of this. This is a failing on the landlord’s part.
We acknowledge the landlord only holds phone records for 100 days. However, it should still have a written record of the call being made and the call handlers contemporaneous notes. We have not seen evidence of this. We would encourage the landlord to remind its employees about the importance of record keeping.