Clarion Housing Association Limited (202320698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320698

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 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 response to the resident’s concerns about service charges.

Background

2. The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The lease commenced in 2021. The property is on a development where a managing agent is responsible for estate maintenance.
3. In 2022, the resident made a previous complaint about estimated charges for communal maintenance he had not seen happening. The landlord said communal maintenance had recently started, and its estimated charges were based on budgets from the managing agent. It said it would later issue a statement of actual expenditure, where it would detail the difference between estimated and actual expenditure and consolidate any over or underspend.
4. In early March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about service charges. On 7 April 2023, the landlord explained that a rent increase was in line with the lease. On 27 April 2023, the landlord provided information about what charges covered. It noted he had concerns that some services were not being provided. It said these were referred to its managing agent team, and it would update him if discrepancies were found.
5. On 27 April 2023, the resident complained that the service charges were inaccurate. He said he was unsure why he paid for communal maintenance when he lived in a house, maintained his own front garden, and no communal maintenance was done in the area. He also asked for the rent to be looked at due to the cost of living.
6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. It addressed some issues with information it had provided. It said that an estate services charge was applicable to all properties on the estate. This included houses. It noted that the 27 April 2023 letter said communal maintenance concerns would be investigated. It suggested that the resident seek assistance from the local authority about rent. It apologised for delayed responses to the resident’s queries and complaint and awarded £100.
7. The resident requested escalation of the complaint. He disputed that communal maintenance was occurring or that there was anything to be maintained. He said that he had only seen a contractor mow outside a maisonette opposite in the past 3 years. He requested a breakdown of what estate services were provided and how he benefited from these. The landlord subsequently discussed the issues internally and with the managing agent. It also visited the resident’s estate and concluded that the grounds maintenance was acceptable.
8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. It explained its approach to service charges and detailed the charges and services over the past 4 financial years. It relayed information about the nature and frequency of the communal maintenance. It confirmed that it had visited and was satisfied with the grounds maintenance. It apologised for the delayed response and awarded a further £100.
9. The resident is noted to have made a further complaint in 2024, after which the landlord conducted a site visit in April 2024 and gave the grounds maintenance a ‘good’ rating. The landlord also acknowledged that its stage 2 response did not sufficiently explain why the resident is required to contribute to estate charges, and says it provided further context to him.
10. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. He says it has not investigated the issues properly. He says that his property is a house and does not have communal grounds. He also says that his house does not receive grass cutting or leaf collection services. He believes the landlord is mixing his house up with maisonettes opposite which receive communal maintenance. He confirms that the landlord provided further information about why he was required to pay the charges, but he says he did not fully understand this and asked to go over this in a call, which did not happen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The Housing Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property) has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge. The Tribunal can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable; and when. We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised in the timeframe of his complaint – which this investigation goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges

12. The resident initially raised some enquiries to the landlord in March 2023, which the Ombudsman has not seen. The landlord’s response that a rent increase is in line with the lease is accurate, as the lease confirms the rent is subject to review each year on 1 April. The landlord’s response about some services not being delivered was also reasonable. It provided information about services being delivered. It provided assurances that the issue would be investigated and followed up if any discrepancies were found.
13. The resident then complained from April 2023 about being charged for communal maintenance. He has outlined several reasons for this. He does not receive communal maintenance. He lives in a house. He maintains his own garden. He has no communal grounds. He does not benefit from communal maintenance such as mowing at properties near his own. He indicates that communal maintenance is non existent or infrequent.
14. The landlord’s responded that an estate services charge is applicable to all properties on the estate. It provided information about the nature and frequency of the communal maintenance. It visited the estate and said that it is satisfied with the grounds maintenance service. It apologised for delayed responses to queries and complaints and awarded £200. It later reviewed its stage 2 response, acknowledged this could have been clearer, and provided further information to the resident.
15. The landlord’s response that an estate services charge applies to the resident is accurate, on review of his lease and the landlord’s title. The landlord’s title obligates it to pay an estate charge proportion of the estate expenses. The lease obligates the resident to pay estate charges and the landlord’s incurred costs. The estate charge proportion is based on the number of dwellings in the development. This means that the resident’s estate charge is a proportion of the costs maintaining the wider development he lives on. It is not just for services carried out in his direct vicinity and will include communal maintenance carried out in other areas of the estate, including outside maisonettes opposite. The obligation to contribute towards all wider communal upkeep is not uncommon for properties on estates.
16. The landlord has an obligation to provide information about service charges and review concerns about the delivery of services they apply to. The landlord fulfilled these obligations in the complaint timeframe by providing information, and by carrying out inspections to review the estate services. The landlord’s conclusion that the estate services are being delivered satisfactorily is reasonable. This followed first–hand inspection by its staff, whose professional opinion it is entitled to rely on. The Ombudsman also notes that communal maintenance on the estate is evident from viewing Google Street View.
17. While this is the case, aspects of the landlord’s handling were not satisfactory. Its responses to the resident’s queries were delayed. Its stage 2 response was delayed by around 3 months. It took around 6 months to visit to review the maintenance. It could have provided clearer explanation about his being expected to pay a proportion of the costs of communal maintenance across the entire estate, not just near his own property. The resident will have been caused distress and inconvenience by the delays and the time and trouble he went to chasing for responses.
18. However, the landlord acknowledged delays in its responses. It awarded £200 compensation. It later acknowledged that the stage 2 did not provide sufficient explanation and sought to provide further clarification. These show that the landlord appropriately sought to put things right. The £200 compensation also seems overall reasonable. This is in line with amounts considered applicable in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been maladministration that adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.
19. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint. This does not mean that we think that the issues, landlord’s handling or impact on the resident were “reasonable.” The finding reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has reasonably acknowledged and remedied in line with our approach.
20. The Ombudsman does note that the resident’s concerns may have arisen due to insufficient information being provided about potential charges for the estate services at the point of sale. While this is outside the scope of our investigation, a recommendation is made about this.
21. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the service charges, only a legal procedure can offer a definitive and legally binding decision, as explained at paragraph 11 above. He also has the option to seek independent advice about his obligations under his lease.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges.

Orders and recommendations

23. The landlord is recommended to pay the £200 it offered to the resident, if this has not been paid.
24. The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident about arranging a call to go over any queries he has about the estate services charge.
25. The landlord is recommended to consider learning from the case, such as:
    1. ensuring that sufficient information is provided at the point of sale about potential charges that may apply, for example when maintenance contracts at new developments later commence.
    2. ensuring that responses to similar concerns are more tailored to residents and the estates or localities in which they live.