Warwick District Council (202312721)

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.

Recommendations

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

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The resident complained about the landlord’s fairness in its method for calculating his service charges, value for money, and the overall cost of the service charges. The resident believed he could get a better deal from alternative suppliers. These are matters which are better suited to a court or the First Tier Tribunal. We have not investigate these elements of the resident’s complaint.

10. The resident signed his tenancy agreement on 5 June 2023. The agreement lists the weekly rent as £122.62. The agreement explains that the term ‘rent’ includes service charges and any other weekly charges applicable to the tenancy. We agree with the landlord’s later acknowledgement that the tenancy agreement could have been clearer by providing a breakdown of the costs and listing the services that were included. However, the information included was reasonable and there is no evidence of a failing in the landlord’s handling of the sign-up process. The resident was aware of the amount which was payable weekly before signing the tenancy agreement.
11. However, it is still reasonable to expect the landlord to explain what service charges are included, and how these are calculated, when asked. The landlord reports that it sent additional documents and information to the resident around the time of sign up. We have not seen evidence of this. The resident told us that he first complained on 30 July 2023, and that he understood that approximately £30 of the weekly rent was for service charges, relating to a communal heating network. It is likely  that some further information was provided in response to the resident’s initial queries. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that this was reasonably detailed or accurate.
12. It is unclear when the resident first asked the landlord to explain how its costs were calculated. We first asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint on 26 September 2023. Had this been done promptly, his concerns could have been explored and responded to. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident between 26 September 2023 and 13 August 2024. We contacted the landlord several times on the resident’s behalf during this period.
13. The resident was first given an explanation of the landlord’s approach for calculating his service charges on 7 September 2024. This was almost a year after our first request for action. The explanation was also inadequate, as recognised by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response. Key information was missing, such as a clear explanation of what services were included in the service charge cost. It was not until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 27 November 2024 that the landlord adequately explained the charges and how they were calculated.
14. The resident also asked the landlord to respond to his request to be disconnected from the communal heat network and to install a boiler in his property. It is unclear when he first raised this with the landlord. We first asked the landlord to respond to this point on 26 September 2023. We asked it to respond again on several further occasions, but there is no evidence it did so.
15. The resident told us that he remains unclear on several aspects of how his service charges are calculated. For example, the landlord implied in its stage 2 complaint response that hot water is included in the charges. However, the resident told us that he has a water tank in his own property and pays to heat his own water through his electricity bill, which is separate to his service charges. We have not seen evidence that the resident asked the landlord to clarify this point or that the landlord failed to respond. We have made a recommendation to resolve the resident’s outstanding concerns.
16. The landlord delayed in providing a reasonable explanation of the resident’s service charges between at least 26 September 2023 and 27 November 2024. This delay of approximately 1 year and 2 months likely impacted the resident by causing distress and inconvenience, as well as causing him to go to avoidable time and trouble to seek answers. It also failed to respond to the resident’s request for an individual boiler. We have made an order for the landlord to pay compensation. This is calculated in line with our compensation policy, where matters have gone unresolved beyond a short duration and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3 working days and respond within a further 20 working days.
18. The resident contacted us on 9 July 2023 for help progressing his complaint. He told us on 30 July 2023 that he had complained to the landlord but never received a response. We have not seen evidence of this. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint on 26 September 2023 but the landlord did not respond. We sent 3 further requests for action after this. On 15 July 2024 we issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order against the landlord and notified its Chief Executive of the landlord’s failure to respond. Despite this, the landlord took a further 39 working days to respond.
19. On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the resident first complained in July 2023. The landlord missed several further opportunities to respond to our contact after this point. It is likely that it took the landlord 14 months to respond. This delay was significant and remains unexplained.
20. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 7 September 2024. It responded 57 working days later on 27 November 2024. This delay was a further failing, and demonstrates it took no learning from its earlier handling of the resident’s complaint. While some of the impact of this delay was mitigated by an extension letter sent to the resident on 22 October 2024, this itself was sent 11 working days after the response was due.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also did not respond to all the elements of the complaint that we had asked it to respond to. Throughout our contact with the landlord prior to its final response, most recently on 31 October 2024, we asked it to respond to the resident’s request for an individual boiler to be installed. The landlord failed to do so.
22. The landlord only acknowledged that there was a delay in handling the resident’s complaint between May 2024 and 6 September 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response it said that it had found no evidence of any further complaint handling delays. This raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping. It is unclear why it did not identify its earlier failings, or its delay at stage 2. The £50 compensation it offered was not proportionate to the likely impact of this protracted delay.
23. In this case, the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings on the resident is inseparable from that caused by its failings in responding to his concerns, assessed earlier in this report. Therefore, the amount ordered above is inclusive of the impact caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made no additional orders for compensation in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
24. The landlord failed on multiple occasions to provide a response to the resident’s complaint. This lack of engagement adversely affected the landlord-tenant relationship. The extent of this impact was evident when the resident explained to us that he has since lost confidence in the landlord’s responses, actions, and decision‑making. Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate adequate regard for, or adherence to, its own policies, procedures, and obligations.
25. The reasons for the landlord’s complaint handling failures are unclear. There is no evidence that the landlord has learned from its failings.In August 2024, we determined case 202309354, in which we ordered the landlord to conduct a review of its complaint handling failings. This was completed in October 2024. We have not made orders to repeat this learning.

Learning

26. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response outlined appropriate and relevant points of learning. This included reviewing its sign up process to ensure residents understand what their rent is made up of. It also said it would consider providing greater clarity for resident’s regarding their service charge calculations for utilities, and making this information easier to access.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. Some evidence that we would expect the landlord to hold were not made available to this investigation. For example, copies of the landlord’s correspondence with the resident and call logs. It is likely that failings in record keeping played a part in this, as the landlord did not appear to review this correspondence as part of its complaint handling.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate. This was a key theme seen throughout the evidence in this case. There is no evidence the landlord learned from this.