Leicester City Council (202407782)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407782

Leicester City Council

17 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an incorrect service charge.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The complaint was submitted to the landlord and brought to this Service on behalf of the resident by their representative. The resident is a leaseholder and occupier of a 3-bedroom, 3 storey maisonette. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. For ease of reference, we will refer to the resident and their representative as “the resident.”
On 4 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord regarding charges on their annual invoice. He reported an incorrect charge for way lighting and stated that he was not responsible for the charge. The resident requested to raise the issue as a complaint.
Around that time, the resident emailed the landlord stating the following reasons for his complaint:
1. he was unhappy with the way lighting charge on the invoice.
2. he believed that the landlord had not raised a complaint as it had stated it would.
3. the landlord had previously confirmed that the resident was not liable to pay a way lighting charge.
4. the annual invoices for the previous 5 years had not contained a way lighting charge.
5. he felt that the landlord had sent a generic invoice without checking the resident’s liability for the charges.
6. he requested a copy of the phone call he made on 4 March 2024 under a Subject Access Request.
7. he wanted compensation for the time taken to resolve the issue, stating that he should not have to continually inform the landlord that he was not responsible for the charge.
On 7 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord stated:
1. it had logged a complaint for the resident on 4 March 2024.
2. due to the nature of the issue, the landlord had treated it as an invoice dispute rather than a complaint. It apologised as it should have explained this to the resident.
3. it contacted the resident in April 2024 to discuss the issue. It acknowledged there was a delay in its contact; this was due to a cyber incident causing difficulties in its operations.
4. it had prepared a credit note to remove the way lighting charge and apologised for any distress caused.
5. there would be no further compensation.
6. it had logged a Subject Access Request, and the resident would receive contact from the relevant team to discuss that separately.
Around 7 May 2024 the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He stated that:
1. he still wanted compensation as he felt that the landlord had not ‘put things right.’
2. he had not received an amended invoice with the incorrect charge removed.
3. due to the error, the landlord had claimed an incorrect amount on the resident’s recent direct debit payment.
4. he had spent over an hour on the phone to the landlord to request a corrected invoice, speaking to different members of staff.
5. he had received poor communication regarding his complaint.
6. he wanted a call from the landlord before a stage 2 response was issued so that he could further explain his situation.
On 22 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord:
1. apologised and confirmed that it should not have applied the way lighting charge to the resident’s invoice.
2. explained that it was unable to produce an amended invoice as annual leaseholder service charges were issued in accordance with set charges and collected via a 12-month payment plan.
3. explained that it had used the credit note as part payment towards the first months’ direct debit, with no changes to the remaining 11 collections.
4. confirmed that overall, the total amount payable reflected the leaseholder charges minus the way lighting charge, so there had been no financial detriment to the resident.
5. advised that due to continuous unreasonable behaviour demonstrated by the resident, the landlord would only communicate with him in writing.
On 27 May 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He stated that he felt inconvenienced by the time spent on phone calls and emails due to the landlord’s maladministration. In correspondence with us, the resident advised that this was the third time that the landlord had incorrectly applied the way lighting charge. As an outcome, he said that he wanted compensation for the inconvenience caused to him and for the landlord to implement a solution to ensure that the matter did not reoccur.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an incorrect service charge

The landlord’s Leaseholders’ Handbook states that it is the landlord’s role to deal with the raising and issuing of the annual service charge invoice, and that it may charge residents depending on the services they receive.
The landlord’s Compensation policy states that it recommends a remedy to address any injustice that has been caused, for example when there has been an apparent service failure. It also says that:
1. remedies should compensate for any distress or inconvenience resulting from the landlord’s actions.
2. the types of loss for which it can compensate a complainant financially can include time and effort spent whilst seeking to resolve the issue.
On 4 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord after receiving notice of the annual charges. He reported that there was an incorrect charge for way lighting that he was not responsible for and asked to raise a complaint. Around the same time, he emailed the landlord outlining his reasons for the complaint. The landlord’s records show that on 5 March 2024, the landlord logged the resident’s request to raise a complaint. This was reasonable.
On 12 April 2024 the resident left a voicemail for the landlord. He said that he had received a new invoice which still showed the incorrect charge. The landlord called the resident on 15 April 2024, 29 working days after the resident had reported the issue. During the call, the resident explained that the landlord had not charged the resident for way lighting in the past due to him not having access to the area where the lighting was situated. The landlord apologised and confirmed that it had mistakenly included the charge in the invoice and would arrange for it to be removed. That was reasonable step to take to correct the error.
On 7 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord recognised the delay in its contact with the resident, stating that due to a cyber incident, it had been difficult to operate at normal capacity. It apologised for any distress caused and stated there would be no further compensation. It is not known to this Service when the cyber incident occurred or how long it lasted. A credit note dated 23 April 2024 showed that the landlord had removed the charge.
Whilst there was a delay in the landlord correcting its error, this Service recognises that the delay was somewhat outside of its control. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the time and effort spent by the resident in trying to resolve the issue. This likely caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s failure to address this was not in line with its compensation policy and was inappropriate.
In his complaint, the resident requested a copy of the phone calls he had made to the landlord. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had logged a Subject Access Request which would be dealt with separately to the complaint. This was reasonable.
Around 7 May 2024 the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He said that he still wanted compensation for the landlord’s error and that he had not received an amended invoice with no incorrect charges. The resident said that he had spent an hour on the phone to the landlord that day attempting to request an amended invoice.
In its stage 2 response on 22 May 2024, the landlord explained that, although it was unable to produce an amended annual invoice, it had used the credit note as part payment towards the first month’s direct debit. This left the remaining 11 payments unaffected, therefore, there had been no overall financial detriment caused to the resident. This was a fair explanation from the landlord. However, the resident had also raised the inconvenience caused to him again. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this. That it did not, was unreasonable.
In his escalation request, the resident asked the landlord to contact him before it addressed the complaint, so that he could further discuss his situation. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that due to unreasonable behaviour displayed by the resident, it would no longer communicate with him via telephone, only in writing. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.
Whilst the landlord was within its right to implement its own policy in relation to unreasonable behaviour, the resident had requested contact before the stage 2 complaint response was issued. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained its position to the resident before it issued the stage 2 response. This would have provided the resident with an opportunity to add any further details to his complaint in writing. However, as there is no evidence to show that this caused any clear detriment to the resident, this is a minor failure in service by the landlord.
Whilst the landlord’s correction of its error was reasonable, it failed to recognise the time and effort spent by the resident in his attempts to resolve the issue. As a result, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an incorrect service charge. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to recognise the inconvenience likely caused to the resident.
2. could have explained its position regarding communication with the resident before it issued the stage 2 response.
After carefully considering the inconvenience likely caused to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror the Code, which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The landlord’s Complaints policy states the following:
1. it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days.
2. it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about an issue that a resident has been unable to resolve with the landlord directly in the first instance.
3. issues not defined as a complaint include initial reporting of issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 March 2024 to report an issue with his annual service charges. He asked to raise the matter as a complaint. On 5 March 2024 the landlord logged that the resident specifically requested a complaint response. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged the complaint to the resident. This was not in line with its complaints policy, which was inappropriate.
On 7 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the representative. This was 44 working days after resident requested to raise the complaint. The landlord explained that due to the nature of the issue, it had followed its own disputes process instead of treating the matter as a complaint. It apologised that it had not explained this to the resident.
As the resident had specially asked to raise a complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed its complaints process. Although it was the first report of the issue on this occasion, the charge for way lighting was not a new issue for the resident. He had expressed dissatisfaction in his email outlining his reasons for the complaint, which included that the landlord had previously concluded he was not liable for the charge. That the landlord did not treat the matter as a complaint and failed to explain why in a reasonable time, likely caused distress to the resident. This was unreasonable.
Around 7 May 2024 the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2024, 11 working days later. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy.
In summary, due to the number of failings we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint.
2. failed to follow its complaint process after the resident expressed dissatisfaction.
3. failed to explain why it followed a different process to the resident within a reasonable time.
After carefully considering the likely distress caused to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an incorrect service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £175 compensation, comprising of:
  1. £75 for any inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of an incorrect service charge.
  2. £100 for any distress likely caused by its handling of the complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord looks into why the error in invoicing the resident for the way lighting occurred and take steps to try to prevent this issue from recurring.