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

One Housing Group Limited (202103557)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103557

One Housing Group Limited

9 September 2021


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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries relating to her service charges for the year 2016 to 2017.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. The property is a three-bedroom flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.

Summary of events

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 October 2018, to query the following charges: water safety assessment, fire equipment maintenance and repairs, light bulb replacement, mechanical and electrical maintenance and repairs, and internal repairs and maintenance. Furthermore, she asked to know the amount assigned to the “sinking fund”, the reason why the above amounts were as high as they were, and for it to provide an amended invoice that would not include gardening fees. The resident also advised the landlord that it was likely that she would subsequently formally ask “to inspect accounts and all receipts relating to [the] queried charges” from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s queries on 9 and 12 October 2018 to advise that: her queries were forwarded to the relevant department; there “may have been a mix up with invoices” between properties; and, as per its investigation, it had found that the fees “for gardening and grounds maintenance” were not included in the total.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 5 November 2018 to provide an updated breakdown of the service charges costs, copies of the invoices requested by her, and an explanation of the reason behind the cost increases previously queried by her.
  4. On 22 February 2019, the resident emailed the landlord in, respect of two letters that she had received from it on 19 February 2019, which stated that she was in arrears with it and that her “mortgage company/lenders” would be informed of this, with the landlord intending to take debt collection action for this. Furthermore, she noted that she had been paying it both her rent and her service charges on time every month, despite disputing the latter, and so she queried where the outstanding amount had originated from. The landlord responded to this on 25 February 2019, to advise that the letter informing her that it had contacted her mortgage provider was sent in error, but that the letter concerning arrears on her account was accurate, and that it had provided her with an account statement for this.
  5. On 13 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to “further dispute” the outstanding service charges and invoices for the year 2016 to 2017. It acknowledged this on 14 October 2019, and it advised her that her query was forwarded to the relevant department.
  6. On 19 November 2019, the landlord advised that it anticipated that the resident’s query would be addressed within ten working days. She then chased up the matter on 24 January, 15 February, and 2 and 11 March 2020.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 June 2020 to advise it that she was still waiting for a response to her query in respect of her outstanding service charges for the year 2016 to 2017. She requested that it therefore respond to this, acknowledge that it had not previously done so and so would not take recovery action against her, and advise her of its complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged this on 3 June 2020, however the resident chased it again on 10 August 2020, as she was yet to receive a response from it.
  8. Also on 10 August 2020, the resident sent the landlord a separate email raising a formal complaint in respect of its handling of her queries regarding her outstanding service charges, the amount of times that she had to chase it for a response, and the fact that she was yet to receive the above requested information. As an outcome to the complaint, she advised it that she wished for it “to provide a detailed and adequate response to the disputed service charges” to her.
  9. The landlord issued a single stage final complaint response on 16 September 2020, in which it:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s multiple contacts and attempts at obtaining a response to her queries, and that it was yet to provide her with this.
    2. Advised that it had responded her queries partially, and that it had attached these answers to her complaint response, further confirming that her remaining queries would be investigated by it.
    3. Explained that it was working on implementing a new system that would ensure that, moving forward, residents’ queries would be available to the whole organisation, which would prevent further delays and inconvenience.
    4. Confirmed that it would uphold her complaint and that it offered her compensation of £50 for “the inconvenience caused and the time taken to respond to [her] enquiries”, along with the possibility “to arrange a call with a dedicated service charge analyst”, to discuss any potential “follow up questions”.
    5. Stated that the resident’s complaint had exhausted its complaints process, and provided information on how to further escalate this, should she be unhappy with its response.

13.The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2020 to advise that she wished for a call with a service charge analyst to be arranged, and that, considering the amount of time that it had taken her to chase it for a response, any compensation lower than £200 was “not adequate”.

14.The resident contacted this Service on 11 and 28 May 2021, to advise that she was unhappy with: the landlord’s handling of her queries relating to service charges, the fact that it was yet to provide answers to a number of questions, and that it was yet to pay her the compensation of £50 that it had offered as part of its complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Compensation and other payments policy

15.The landlord’s compensation and other payments policy states that it “would consider paying compensation to its residents” in instances when it was negligent in its service delivery, failed to meet its service targets, did not act reasonably, the resident suffered loss or inconvenience, or no other form of redress is suitable.

16.The amount of compensation paid in instances where the landlord aims to cover time, trouble, or distress is at its discretion.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries relating to her service charges for the year 2016 to 2017

17.The resident initially queried her outstanding service charges with the landlord on 8 October 2018 for the year 2016 to 2017. She then chased the matter up with it on numerous occasions on 22 February, 13 October and 19 November 2019, and on 24 January, 15 February, 2 and 11 March, 2 June and 10 August 2020. In its single stage final complaint response of 16 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged and confirmed that it had not fully addressed the resident’s queries. Taking the above into account, it acted in an unreasonable manner towards her because it failed to provide her with a satisfactory response to her service charge queries within an acceptable timeframe.

18.In its complaint response of 16 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged its above shortcomings, offered the resident compensation of £50 for the inconvenience caused, and advised that it was working on implementing a new system that would ensure that it would communicate more effectively. It also offered to arrange a call with a service charge analyst, who could provide further clarification. In respect of the above, it is noted that:

  1. It was reasonable and expected of the landlord to acknowledge its shortcomings concerning the amount of time it that took to address the resident’s outstanding service charge queries, and that it responded to at least some of her queries. Although it is of concern that it confirmed that it had only provided her with a partial response, and that her remaining queries would still have to be investigated by it.
  1. Its compensation and other payments policy does not set amounts for compensation to be paid to cover inconvenience/time and trouble. However, considering that, as outlined above, between 8 October 2018 and 10 August 2020, when the formal complaint was raised, the resident contacted the landlord on at least nine occasions in respect of the same matter, the amount of £50 was not proportionate to recognise this reasonably. Therefore, considering the above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that, in instances where a failure is identified including repeated failures to reply to correspondence and meet service standards, compensation awards should range up to £250, based on the impact on the resident or the severity of the failure.
  2. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer to arrange a call with a service charge analyst, as this would have assisted the resident with having her queries addressed and answered, which was what she had advised it that she was looking to obtain as an outcome of her complaint.
  3. Its decision to implement a new system, within its organisation, to facilitate more effective communication was reasonable, and showed its intention to learn from its mistakes and to take steps to ensure that these did not recur in the future.

19.To conclude, this Service appreciates the landlord’s attempts to eventually address and answer the resident’s queries, and to improve its service in the future. However, based on the information provided to us, it did not fully put things right and resolve all of her concerns because it did not recognise its excessive delays and lack of information to her with a proportionate level of compensation or answer all of her queries. Furthermore, it is noted that in the resident’s correspondence to this Service of 11 and 28 May 2021, she reported that her outstanding service charge queries were still to be answered in full by the landlord, which added to the delay of over two years on its part, and that she had not yet received the £50 compensation that it had offered her.

Determination (decision)

20.In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries relating to her service charges for year 2016 to 2017.

Reasons

21.The landlord failed to answer the resident’s queries in full and within a reasonable timeframe, and the level of compensation that it offered her for this was not proportionate to recognise the length of its delay or its lack of information.

Orders and recommendation

22.The landlord is ordered to:

  1. Pay the resident the £50 compensation that it previously awarded her within four weeks, if she has not received this already.
  2. Pay the resident £200 further compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that she experienced from its delays and lack of information in responding to her outstanding service charge queries.
  3. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange a call between her and a service charge analyst to address any remaining queries that she has in respect of her outstanding service charges for the year 2016 to 2017, if it has not done so already.

25.It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures on service charge communication, complaint handling and compensation, which should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.

26.The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendation.

27.The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.