Wandle Housing Association Limited (202332295)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332295

Wandle Housing Association Limited

31 January 2025

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:
1. The level of a service charge for fire-safety.
2. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries about his service charge.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a terraced house. As part of his rent the resident pays a fixed service charge.
In February 2023, the landlord sent an annual rent statement for 2023/2024. This notified the resident of an increase in his rent, including the fixed service charge, under section 13 of the Housing Act (1988). It also informed him of his right to challenge the proposed change. The resident subsequently wrote to the landlord asking it to explain an “increase of 698%” in his fixed service charge from the previous year. He also asked why he was being charged for some services, such as pest control, that he had not used. The available records, although incomplete, indicate that the landlord reviewed the charges and made some changes, including removing costs for pest control.
On 28 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that his concerns about the level of his service charges remained largely unresolved. He complained that:
1. The explanation he had been given to justify the increase in charges for fire-safety was not clear. He did not agree that the charge was proportionate for the size of the building.
2. He was concerned that the charges for fire-safety were incorrect because the landlord had acknowledged mistakes in its charges previously.
3. He asked for callbacks twice and received none.
The resident resent his complaint in mid-November 2023, copying in the Ombudsman. The landlord issued an interim stage 1 response around 2 weeks later, because it said it needed more time. The landlord responded again on 23 February 2024, in which it said:
1. It was sorry for the delay, but more time was needed to check records to ensure it was receiving value for money relating to fire-safety maintenance.
2. The fire-safety costs were incurred for services carried out to fulfil its obligations.
3. On reviewing the costs, it had identified a way to make the fire-safety checks more cost effective.
4. The resident would see a reduction in his service charge for the following year.
Following receipt of the next rent statement, the resident complained on 2 April 2024 that:
1. There had been delays, poor communication, and incorrect information in response to his query about the fire-safety costs up to that point.
2. He was unhappy because his service charge had increased after he was advised it would reduce.
3. The charges for fire-safety costs were too high for the size of his building.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 14 May 2024, it concluded that:
1. The service charge did not reduce because of an overall increase in other fire-safety services. It apologised and awarded compensation of £100 for the disappointment caused.
2. Costs were set by its fire-safety contractor and was dependent on several factors.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he believes the fire-safety charges are unfair. He is also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his query about the increase in the costs. The resident advised that he has been financially affected and has spent time pursuing his concerns. As an outcome, he is seeking a reduction in his service charge and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate the resident’s complaint about:
1. The level of a service charge for fire-safety.
The crux of the resident’s complaint is that he does not believe the cost for the fire-safety services and maintenance are reasonable. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in his opinion, concern the level of a service charge. The resident may wish to take legal advice about the possibility of pursuing his concerns either through the First Tier Tribunal or the County Court. While we have not investigated the level of the charge itself, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries and his associated concerns.

Scope of investigation

The resident advised that he asked the landlord to install a push button in his building to help reduce communal lighting costs. He said the landlord has not responded to his request. While we have seen that the resident suggested the push button be installed in his initial query, he did not complain to the landlord about its response (or lack of). In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions first. The resident may wish to raise this again with the landlord now. Should he remain unhappy with the response he receives, the resident can raise a complaint with the landlord accordingly. This may then be referred to the Ombudsman for investigation if the resident remains unhappy.

Service charge queries

As explained in the Ombudsman’s December 2023 insight report, we expect landlords to provide clear and accessible information about service charges. The report states this includes explaining whether it is a fixed or variable charge and what services it covers.
We have seen that the landlord’s rent statement explained that the charge is fixed. It also set out a breakdown of services that made up the service charge and the cost of each of those. Further, the statement advised to contact the landlord with any questions about the rent and gave a specific email address for queries about service charges. Importantly, it notified the resident of his legal right to challenge the rental increase, of which the fixed service charge is made up. This included signposting to Citizens Advice. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted appropriately. It provided clear information about the service charge and how to challenge the increase in his rent in its rent statement.
In his initial query on 5 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to explain why his service charge had increased by almost 700% from the year before. According to the resident’s September 2023 complaint letter, he received a response to his query on 3 April 2023, which addressed it in part. He said that the landlord advised that the charge for maintaining the fire-safety system was estimated using costs it had paid to its contractor. He questioned whether this was reasonable for the size of his building. Though the email the resident referred to was not included in the evidence shared with this Service, we have seen no reason to question this. The approach to fixed costs being based on an estimate rather than an actual fee is consistent with the approach explained in the landlord’s tenancy handbook. It is also in line with industry practice.
While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the appropriateness of the landlord’s response to the initial query, it is apparent from available records that it did undertake a review of the service charge. This appeared to focus on the costs the resident had specifically highlighted in his query. Reviewing a service charge is something the tenant handbook says the landlord may do in response to tenants concerns about the accuracy of service charges. So, it was reasonable for it to do so in response to the resident’s query. We can, therefore, say that the landlord took the resident’s concerns about the service charge into account, in line with its published guidance.
In the landlord’s follow up stage 1 response from February 2023, it said it had reviewed its records to “ensure that we are receiving the level of service” being charged. Again, this was appropriate given that the resident had specifically questioned the accuracy of the fire-safety maintenance costs in his complaint. The reason it took almost 5 months to complete the review is not, in the Ombudsman’s view, evidenced in the records shared. We will though address the delay and the impact of this in the complaint handling section.
The landlord advised that the fire-safety systems included emergency lights and a fire alarm. It said it had a legal obligation “to carry out inspection and maintenance programmes” of its systems. The landlord’s explanation was partly appropriate because it provided necessary context. This is that it is required to meet fire safety standards and regulations, such as the Fire Safety Act (2021).
While the landlord provided some appropriate explanations, it also gave information that was not quite correct. This was that the consolidation of some of its fire system checks would result in the service charge being reduced in 2024/2025. This did not happen and, in fact, the cost for fire safety servicing increased. Understandably, this was one of the reasons the resident escalated his complaint.
In the stage 2 response from mid-May 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the advice it had given was “misleading”. It apologised and awarded compensation of £100 for the disappointment caused. The landlord’s recognition of its error was appropriate. The amount of compensation was in line with the level the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a landlord should pay where service failure has caused a degree of distress but is not expected to be long lasting.
The initial response did not address the resident’s complaint about the reason for the significant increase in the previous year. This was also one of the reasons the resident said he remained unhappy. The landlord’s stage 2 response was largely unhelpful. It included generic information that gave no insight on the reason for the increase from the previous year. The explanation provided was that its contractor’s costs were based on the complexity of the fire-safety system and the number of flats. Fundamentally, it failed, again, to address the question about why the cost for fire safety maintenance had increased in 1 year. As it stands, the resident’s question remains unresolved.
In its response to our request for information, the landlord provided explanations about the differences in how it charged for fire-safety costs. It is unclear why these were not apparent before our involvement. Nonetheless, the landlord will be ordered to provide these explanations to the resident as an outcome to this investigation.
Throughout his complaint the resident said he was unhappy with the level of contact from the landlord. He cited 3 occasions where he had requested a member of staff call him back and this did not happen. The phone records support that the resident called 3 times between March and September 2023, asking to speak to someone about his service charge query. As explained, there is enough evidence to show that the landlord did respond in writing in April 2023. We have seen no records of staff returning calls. Neither of the landlord’s responses acknowledged this, which is a failing and a missed opportunity to put things right. It was also not in keeping with the landlord’s commitment to its customers, as outlined in its values, to always have the customer in mind.
While the landlord has given some explanations and taken some appropriate actions to address the resident’s questions and concerns, it has not done enough, in the Ombudsman’s view. A finding of service failure has, therefore, been made and the landlord is ordered to take actions to remedy the impact on the resident, in line with our guidance on remedies.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2-stage process. This includes that it will acknowledge any “expression of dissatisfaction” and escalations within 5 working days. It then commits to responding within 10-working days at stage 1 and 20-working days at stage 2. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which the landlord is required to follow.
Based on the available records, the landlord did not follow its published process in escalating the resident’s complaint from 28 September 2023. We have seen no evidence that it acknowledged the complaint until 23 November 2023. This was after the resident had contacted the Ombudsman for help the week before, including the landlord in the email trail. It appears from the records we have seen that the reason for this delay was due to the landlord dealing with the resident’s concerns as a query rather than a complaint. This was inappropriate because the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction, and by its own complaints policy and the Code, it should have dealt with it as a complaint.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 30 November 2023, which was within the 10-working day timescale from its acknowledgment. However, this was in fact around a month delayed by this point. It did also not address the resident’s complaints because it said further investigation was needed. This approach was not compliant with the Code which requires that a stage 1 response be sent when “the answer to the complaint is known”. The landlord could have agreed a timescale with the resident, which is something its policy and the Code states it should do.
Not agreeing on an extension left the matter open ended. We have seen that the resident also had to chase up the further response, which was not in the spirit of the Code. For cases where there is likely to be a delay in a response, we would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that this happened. Not having an agreed timescale or sending regular updates was poor service. It also likely contributed to the significant delay in providing a full response of around 4 months. This is a failing, for which the landlord has not taken accountability.
At stage 2, the landlord exceeded its timescale by around 4-working days. As such, the landlord almost met the required timescale. Even so, it was a further failing. As previously mentioned in this report, this response did not address aspects of the resident’s complaint. Again, this was not in line with the requirements of the Code, which requires landlords to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”.
Neither of the landlord’s responses acknowledged any complaint handling failings. It has, therefore, not taken any of the actions the policy says it can take to remedy the complaint. These include apologising and paying compensation. These are outcomes that the Code encourages a landlord consider making. The Ombudsman therefore determines maladministration and orders the landlord to undertake actions to put right the impact.
We have not made any orders in relation to service improvements and learning in this case. The reason for this is the Ombudsman has made similar findings in recent investigations. In these cases, we have ordered the landlord to demonstrate learning around:
1. Ensuring complaints are escalated and responded to within required timescales.
2. Improving the quality of its responses to complaints.

The landlord is, however, asked to consider taking learning from its handling of the resident’s case in its ongoing work to improve its service.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the complaint about the level of a service charge for fire-safety is outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries about his service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with our orders to:
1. Write to the resident apologising for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Pay him £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused, which is made up of:
  1. £200 (or £100 if the original award has been paid) for not providing an adequate response to the service charge query.
  2. £100 for the complaint handling failures.
3. Write to the resident to explain specific reason(s) for the increase in the costs related to fire-safety from 2022/2023 to 2023/2024.