Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing (202223608)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223608

Southern Housing

28 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. He has lived at the property since May 2011.
  2. The resident asked the landlord in June 2021 when it would provide the final service charge demand for the year 2020/2021. The landlord responded to advise that it was working to finalise the account. It said that it did not have a specific date as to when it would be issued. The resident chased this information again in October 2022.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 18 November 2022. He said he had not received responses to some queries he had raised. He also said that the landlord had still not provided the final service charge demand for the year 2020/2021. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2023. It apologised for not providing a full response to all the resident’s queries. It said that it hoped to provide its final service charge account for the year 2020/2021 by the end of April 2023. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £95, which included £50 for the delay in its complaint response.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 June 2023. He said he had still not received the final service charge demand for the year 2020/2021 or 2021/2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in sending the end of year demands. It said that its auditors were working to certify the accounts, but it could not confirm how long this would take. The landlord increased its compensation to £195, this included £100 for its complaint handling failures.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He asked the Service to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord had still not provided the end of year accounts. The resident has since advised us in March 2025 that the landlord provided the final service charge demand for 2020/2021 in November 2024. It then provided the final service charge demand for 2021/2022 in December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. The resident has told us that the landlord has not provided documentary evidence of the service charges as agreed. This issue has not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore, it will not form part of this investigation. If the resident’s concerns about this issue remains, he has the option of raising them formally with the landlord as complaints. If he remains dissatisfied once the landlord has investigated his complaint, he can then ask the Ombudsman to investigate this issue.
  3. Paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  4. The resident has told the Service that the landlord has not responded to Section 21 notices he has sent to it. He said that the landlord was liable for a fine for not responding. The Ombudsman cannot consider whether the landlord has failed to comply with statutory requirements. This is a matter which falls outside of our jurisdiction and is something which the resident may wish to seek advice from his local council about enforcing.
  5. The resident has also told the Service that he does not consider that the landlord has followed section 20b of the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) 1985. He considers that the landlord issued non-compliant section 20b notices and that the backdated charges are therefore unenforceable. We have not considered the landlord’s adherence to section 20b of the LTA 1985. This is because these matters are more reasonably and effectively considered by First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) FFT. The resident should contact the FTT if he wants a binding determination as to whether the charge is reasonable and payable.
  6. While the Ombudsman will not assess whether the landlord has failed to comply with its obligations under section 20b and 21 of the Act, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord responded after the resident raised concerns about its handling of his request for service charge information.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.

  1. In its final complaint response, the landlord explained that its auditors had agreed to work through and certify the remaining accounts. However, it said that it was unable to determine how long that might take. It was reasonable for the landlord to not provide a specific timescale as it was unaware of when its auditors would certify its accounts, and this was at least partly outside its immediate control. The landlord had previously not met the timescale it aimed for in its stage 1 response. This caused the resident inconvenience and resulted in him escalating his complaint.
  2. The evidence provided shows that the landlord contacted the resident on 9 February 2024. It said that the service charge accounts for 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 had come back from its auditors. The landlord then provided a breakdown of the service charges for the above years (excluding some costs, such as management fees) on 27 February 2024. It provided the finalised accounts in November and December 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with the information he requested when this became available to it.
  3. The landlord in its complaint responses acknowledged and apologised for poor communication and delays in it providing the finalised service charge accounts. It explained what steps it had taken to improve its communication. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised in both of its complaint responses for its failures and explained what steps it was taking to improve its communication going forward.
  4. The landlord offered the resident of compensation of £95 for its communication failures. This amount reasonably reflected the delays in the landlord’s responses and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of their effect on the resident. In addition, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays in its complaint responses. It compensated the resident a total of £100 for the delay. This was a fair resolution for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  5. Overall, the resident’s frustration with the delayed accounts is clear to see from his correspondence with the landlord, and understandable in these circumstances. Nonetheless, the landlord’s acknowledgement of the delays, and recognition of the impact on the resident, along with its apology and financial redress, were reasonable responses to the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £195 compensation it offered in its complaint responses.