Your Housing Group Limited (202423517)

Decision
Case ID	202423517
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Your Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 February 2026

Background

The resident contacted the landlord as he was unhappy with the increase in his service charge costs. He made formal requests for it to provide him with supporting information explaining the increase. The landlord provided the resident with information, but he felt this did not clearly explain the increase.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his service charge costs.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his service charge costs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We consider the service charge information the landlord provided, satisfied its legal requirements. Its communication with the resident was good. It took steps to support the resident to resolve the issue such as meeting with him in person to further explain the service charge information.
The landlord’s stage 1 response gave the resident the wrong timeframe for escalating his complaint. It failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with its response and escalate the complaint at an earlier stage. Its stage 2 response was overdue, and it did not recognise these failures.

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 failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in its complaint handling and is meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.	No later than 27 March 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

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

The apology is specific to the failures identified in its complaint handling and is meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

27 March 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

No later than

27 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 February 2024	The resident raised his complaint with the landlord. He said: Following his formal request for it to give him details of its costs, the information it had sent him did not give a clear explanation for the increase in his service charge costs. He disputed the increase in energy costs for the communal area, as he believed someone was living there. It had not given him a schedule of works to show its repairs were value for money. It had misled and confused him by not giving him an appropriate outcome to the issues. Its costs for the laundry service were high compared to the price of buying equipment from the high street. Some of its charges including that for window cleaning were not accurate.
27 February 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It understood its information following his formal request may have seemed confusing. This was because it had to redact information which did not apply to the block of flats, he lived in. It was confident the service charge information it sent him was in the correct format as outlined in legislation. There was no evidence it had provided irrelevant information. However, it felt it could improve its process, so the information was more appropriate for customers. It was still happy to meet him to discuss the service charge information in more detail. It understood it was frustrating that the electricity bills for his block had the wrong address on. It was working with its suppliers to resolve this. It advised he could apply to a tribunal who would consider the reasonableness of its service charges. It would comply with any directions the tribunal would make. It was aware of an historic issue of inappropriate use of the communal lounge. It had addressed this and did not consider it caused a significant impact on energy usage. It had provided him with all relevant cost following his formal request. It would be happy to give him more information about specific costs. Its contracts were subject to its procurement process and value for money was a critical part of this. Its electricity charge had increased due to market volatility. As a result, its budgeting forecasts reflected the higher cost of energy. The communal laundry service does not pose a fair and direct comparison with domestic equipment. Its lift repair work was unexpected and expensive. Due to the costs, it had capped the costs it would apply to residents. There was no evidence the damage to the communal gates was deliberate. It was its policy to recover costs relating to service chargeable items.
On or around 12/07/2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response.
11/09/2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It was able to recover its reasonable costs in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It had to follow procurement legislation when it awarded contracts. It then follows its contract management procedures to ensure it manages these effectively and give value for money. It confirmed it felt all its service charge costs were reasonable and it had to recover these costs from leaseholders. It had given him copies of invoices for repairs to equipment at the block of flats. However, contractors do not need to give it a breakdown of labour or material costs. It had tried to change the wrong address on the electricity bills. However, the bill did relate to his block of flats, so its charge was correct. It had not charged him for 2 repairs that appeared in the service charge information it had sent him. It had listed these in error. It stage 1 response had given a clear explanation of the lift repair costs. Repairs to an inlet valve were costly, due to supply chain issues after the Covid 19 outbreak. It must follow its procurement process for completing repairs. This is why the cost for repairing gates and a fence was more expensive that a quote the resident had got for this work. It had told him the laundry contract presented value for money. It covered all its costs including equipment and accidental damage. His lease allowed it to charge a management fee to cover its costs of providing and administering services. This charge could fluctuate each year, but it was fair and reasonable.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us on 17 September 2024. He said the: Landlord’s response left him very dissatisfied. Landlord’s increase in service charges had caused him financial loss. Landlord should provide him with invoices and a breakdown of all repairs that were included in his service charge bill.

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.

What we did not consider

We are unable to consider the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions. This requires a decision by a court or tribunal service such as the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to seek legal advice should he wish to discuss the matter further. However, we can consider if the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about his service charge costs
Finding	No maladministration

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says the landlord must:
1. Provide information about the service charges of the tenant and relevant costs relating to service charges, upon request.
2. Where a landlord has provided a summary of this information, a resident may make an application to inspect accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary. Landlords must make such facilities available to the resident to inspect the documents for two months beginning not later than one month after the request is made.
The resident sent the landlord a formal notice on 17 November 2023, to provide him with information about its service charge costs. The landlord sent the resident a breakdown of its repair costs on 8 December 2023. This showed the number and type of repairs it had raised, along with the costs it would pass onto leaseholders. This information satisfied both parts of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This was reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 and 15 December 2023 and 1 February 2024. He said the information it had given him did not give a clear explanation for its increased service charge costs. As a result, he said he would be applying to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and reserved the right to ask for a management audit of its accounts.
The evidence shows the landlord responded promptly each time the resident contacted it. It advised him of the application process to the FTT and that it would await his auditor’s instructions. This was reasonable and shows that it was taking steps to support the resident to resolve the issue.
The landlord met with the resident on 19 January 2024. It explained why some resident’s service charges are different to others, it did not charge leaseholders for repairs to tenant’s properties and how it calculated the charges for leaseholders in his block. This was a positive step by the landlord to support the resident and shows effective communication by it.
The evidence shows on 19 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to provide him with supporting documents for service charge costs for the 2022 to 2023 financial year. It explained he would need to send it a formal request as this required it to collate many documents. It is unclear why it did this as it had already sent the information on 8 December 2023. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord’s evidence shows on 14 March 2024 the resident sent the landlord an email with an attachment of a formal notice to inspect its accounts further. However, the landlord’s evidence does not contain a record of his request. Its response on the same day indicates the resident wanted it to provide information about its service charge costs for the financial years 2018 to 2019, 2019 to 2020, 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. It said it had already sent him all the relevant information for 2022 to 2023 and as a gesture of goodwill it would send him the information for 2021 to 2022. However, his request for the remaining financial years was out of time. This was reasonable.
The resident asked the landlord on 24 March 2024 to send him unredacted copies of its service charge information. It told him on 8 April 2024 it was unable to do this due to data protection regulations. However, it said it was happy for him to inspect its documents at its office. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s records show the landlord hand delivered the service charge information for 2021 to 2022 to the resident on 30 May 2024. This was reasonable.
The evidence we have seen shows that the information the landlord sent the resident satisfied its legal requirement under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, it could have explained this clearly to the resident when it sent him the information, to manage his expectations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have told the resident that the information it sent him on 19 December 2023 and 30 May 2024 was comprehensive.
The landlord’s stage 1 response addressed the resident’s concerns. It provided him with an explanation for the service charge issues which he disputed. It said it had made several requests with its supplier to correct the address on the electricity bills. We have not seen any evidence that indicates its explanations were inaccurate or that it was trying to mislead him, as he had said when he raised his complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response set out the legislation it relied on to pass its costs onto leaseholders. It addressed the further issues that he raised, gave him details on how to challenge the reasonableness of its charges at the FTT and that it must follow procurement rules. This was reasonable.
The landlord did not follow the process set out in legislation for sending the resident information about its service charge costs. However, there was minimal detriment to the resident as the evidence shows the information it sent him complied with its legal obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The evidence we have seen shows the landlord’s response to the issues the resident raised were appropriate, fair, and reasonable. Its communication with him was good. The landlord acted in line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and we find no evidence of maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 acknowledgement on 20 February 2024. This was 13 working days after he had raised his complaint on 1 February 2024. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow its complaints policy that says it will send acknowledgement within 5 working days.
The landlord sent the resident acknowledgement at stage 2 on 15 July 2024. It is unclear from the evidence when he escalated his complaint. We are unable to determine if the landlord sent its acknowledgement within 5 working days as outlined in its complaints policy. However, this was a record keeping failure.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 27 February 2024. This was 5 working days after he raised his complaint and within its complaints policy’s timeframe of 10 working days. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said the resident had 10 working days to escalate his complaint. However, its complaints policy says residents had 8 weeks to escalate a complaint. This was not reasonable and caused the resident confusion. He asked it to clarify this on 28 February 2024. It told him it asked residents to escalate complaints within 10 working days, so it had the opportunity to resolve issues quickly. This was a failure to follow its complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 42 working days after the resident had escalated his complaint. This was 22 working days over its complaints policy’s timeframe to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. This was not reasonable and delayed him accessing this Service.
After the landlord had sent the resident its stage 1 response, he contacted it on multiple occasions about concerns on the service charge information. The evidence shows the landlord responded promptly to provide him with an answer to the issues he raised. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered escalating his complaint at an earlier stage given the dissatisfaction he raised during this communication. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its complaints policy that says, a customer should detail the parts of its response with which they are unhappy. We consider the resident did this on multiple occasions after its stage 1 response. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its complaints policy’s route to escalate a complaint.
With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £50 compensation for his distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures that it did not acknowledge and put right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was good. The detailed records it provided us shows it is committed to being transparent and accountable.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was good. It responded to his queries quickly and took further steps to support him by arranging in person meetings.