Wealden District Council (202413166)

Background

1. The resident pays a variable service charge. He complained about the scheme manager service and said the designated managers were often working elsewhere. He wanted the landlord to explain if it intended to credit some of the related service charge. He remained dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s complaint process because it did not agree to give a credit.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the scheme manager service and related service charge.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the scheme manager service and related service charge.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

4. The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that happened or comment on all the information we reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charges. The resident told us he wants the landlord to give a refund for periods when the designated scheme managers were covering other schemes. This is ultimately about the level of the charge and he did not ask for a refund in his complaint to the landlord. A court or First Tier Tribunal is best placed to consider the level of the charge and whether a refund is due.

What we did investigate

6. We can see the landlord dealt with multiple complaints and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from the resident about his service charges. Some were ongoing when he complained about the scheme manager service and related charge on 2 May 2024. Our investigation focussed on events from March 2024 which led to the complaint of 2 May 2024.
7. In March 2024, the landlord wrote to residents of the scheme saying it had recruited to vacant posts at other schemes. It said existing scheme managers would continue to cover vacant posts until the new managers started in April. It gave a rota of when the designated managers for the resident’s scheme would be working there. It confirmed welfare calls and health and safety checks would be done as usual and explained how residents could contact the scheme managers when they were working at other schemes.
8. In our view, it was appropriate the landlord arranged to cover vacant posts while continuing to provide a service at the resident’s scheme. While the lease obliges the landlord to provide a scheme manager service, it does not specify how many hours per week the service should be for or require a manager to be based on the scheme. The information provided by the landlord made sure residents knew what the service provision was and how they could access the service when a manager was working elsewhere.
9. There is no evidence, the resident raised any concerns between March 2024 until he complained on 2 May 2024. In his complaint, he said managers designated to his scheme had been covering for vacant posts since 2022. He was unhappy that the landlord had charged for the service as “normal” and believed it would have spent less. He said residents were incurring extra charges because they had to use a call service when managers were not on site. He asked the landlord to explain if it intended to credit residents.
10. The landlord may have felt its previous complaint and FOI responses had addressed the same points the resident raised in his complaint of 2 May 2024. If so, its responses should have clearly referred to its previous advice.
11. As they did not, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to properly address the concerns raised. It should have explained why it felt the service provision was in line with the lease and how it would reconcile its actual costs with its estimated charges and apply any credits due. It should also have addressed the point of whether residents incurred extra charges if they used the call service.
12. In both its complaint responses, the landlord said it did not adjust its charges when scheme managers were covering other schemes. The evidence suggests this was not an accurate reflection of its practice. This is because we can see it considered the savings it might make through staff turnover when setting its estimated service charges. We can also see it compared its actual costs with its estimated charges and appropriately applied surpluses and deficits to the following year’s estimated charges. Its approach was in line with its service charge policy and it is not clear why the landlord said it did not adjust charges in its complaint responses.
13. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns amounts to service failure. We have ordered it to pay £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
14. We have not ordered it to give further explanation in response to the concerns raised on 2 May 2024. This is because, after the end of the complaint process, the landlord issued its statement of actual costs and the resident inspected its supporting invoices. This will have answered his points about the cost of the service and whether it was lower than the estimated charge.

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.