London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202230499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230499

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 May 2024

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:
1. enquiries into his 2021 to 2022 service charges final balance and statement, which included:
  1. concerns that the balance was not based on reconciliated accounts and showed a deficit.
  2. his request to inspect the supporting invoices.
  3. the managing agent’s decision to issue a section 20B notice and the landlord’s communication in relation to this.
2. concern that he was not consulted about the night concierge service and associated service charges.

Background

The resident purchased his 2-bedroom flat on 7 April 2021, on a shared-ownership basis and is a leaseholder. The resident pays a variable service charge.
The landlord is a housing association and its managing agent (Agent B) provides services, such as the concierge on the resident’s estate on its behalf for which the resident pays a service charge. Agent B also oversees the service charge accounts associated with the services that it provides.
In 2021, the landlord increased the hours of the concierge service from 12 hours, which covered 7am-7pm to 24 hours. Thus providing a night concierge service. It said that this was because of the increase of the antisocial behaviour (ASB) on the resident’s estate. The resident disputes this and has stated that this is because of security issues, such as broken gates and entrance doors.
Upon receiving the landlord’s proposed service charge budget. The resident raised his concerns about it on 16 February 2022 and asked the landlord to:
1. confirm that the proposed budget did not include 2021 to 2022 service charges that came under warranties and insurances, such as failed entrance doors, gates and the night concierge service.
2. send him the evidence of the difference between the actual and estimated costs.
On 30 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that the night concierge was supposed to be a temporary arrangement because of the security issues. He said, if the night concierge was going to be a permanent service, residents should be consulted.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord responded to the resident. It said:
1. not all costs could be recovered under insurance or warranty, such as costs related to the day-to-day maintenance of the building.
2. estimated charges were based on the previous year’s actual expenditure, plus an RPI inflationary uplift. The estimated charges were reviewed on a yearly basis and service charges differed from year to year based on the previous year’s actual expenditure.
3. those estimate costs would be reconciled against the actual expenditure incurred at the end of the financial year. As the resident was a variable service charge payer, any resulting over/underspend would be either debited or credited to his account.
4. Agent B was responsible for setting the budget for the services that it provided and reconciling its accounts. It was unable to legally force it to bill on time.
5. although it may be able to ask Agent B to review its budget in the future, it was unable to predict potential changes unforeseen circumstances when it set the estimates and this may cause a deficit cost. It explained that the resident had a credit balance due at the end of its financial year.
On 5 September 2022 the landlord issued its final service charge balance and statement for 2021 to 2022 to the resident.
On 13 September 2022 the resident raised his concerns to the landlord that he had not been consulted on the provision of the night concierge. He requested:
1. a summary of expenditure showing line-by-line description of the services provided along with the costs. In particular the night concierge costs.
2. a full pack of supporting invoices that made up the final statement.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord apologised for the delayed response and said:
1. supporting invoices for Agent B’s accounts had not been reconciled, therefore they were not available. It would arrange for the resident to inspect the accounts once Agent B had reconciled its accounts.
2. Agent B had served a section 20B.
3. it had recalculated the service charges previously set which showed that the resident’s estimated service charge amount was lower than it should have been. This meant that final statement showed a deficit. It said that any over or under spend would be rectified when Agent B’s accounts were reconciled.
4. the night concierge service was not a qualifying long term agreement as the staff were employed by Agent B. It had extended the service to 24 hours due to various issues reported at the time. The service was under review and would revert back to the 12 hour service if it was no longer needed.
The resident made a complaint on 26 January 2023. He said:
1. he had previously requested to inspect the invoices and had been told they were not available as the accounts had not yet been reconciled. He had not received an update on the matter.
2. a s20B notice had been served by Agent B onto the landlord. However, the landlord failed to follow the proper process and was “in breach of service charge legislation”.
3. the landlord had incorrectly charged him for the night concierge service. It had not carried out a s20 consultation as the service was a long-term qualifying agreement.
On 31 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. it had paid the 2021 to 2022 service charges for the year. The resident’s apportionment meant that he was due to pay the sum noted in the final statement for the managing agent provided services.
2. it carried out its reconciliation at the end of the year. It said any balancing charges or credit notes received after 31 March, whether it was result of an account reconciliation or a correction, would be included in the year in which it was received.
3. the resident had purchased his home 7 April 2021, which was soon after the financial year had started it did not take into account the new budget from Agent B. Therefore, the resident’s service charge budget was higher than it should have been if the estimated charge had been calculated on the latest budget. Therefore, there was a deficit balance to pay. It said that it could have done better and advised the resident of the correct estimated amount for the year prior to him completing the purchase of his home. It offered the resident £50 for the error.
4. the deficit balance was not unreasonable, as it was not able to guarantee that the estimated service charge would cover the invoices paid that year. The resident was a variable service charge payer, therefore any over or under spend would be rectified when Agent B’s accounts were reconciled and issued in the near future.
5. it would provide the resident with the expenditure report once it had received the accounts and would liaise with Agent B to make the necessary arrangements for the resident to inspect the accounts.
6. there were “significant” levels of ASB which had affected the resident’s estate in 2021. It acted “swiftly” and decided to increase the concierge service hours. As a result it had seen a reduction of reports of ASB.
7. the concierge service was staffed by the managing agent, therefore it did not qualify as long-term agreement and it did not need to carry out a s20 consultation.
On 6 February 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. the landlord did not use the recommended accruals method of accounting. He stated that all costs and credits for any particular year should be reflected in the accounts for that year and not in subsequent years.
2. On 24 October 2022 the landlord had told him that Agent B had served a s20B notice on the landlord. But the landlord had not served one on him to recover sums over 18 months old. The deficit on the final statement remained as an estimate and was based on the costs that had been incurred after 10 months of the service charge year end.
3. The service charge accounts for the year end of March 2022 had not been reconciled or audited. No auditors’ statements had been sent to the residents. Its service charges included a figure for an audit fee.
4. he had requested the supporting invoices that made up the final 2021 to 2022 statement. The landlord had told him that the invoices were not available as Agent B had not reconciled its figures. He was concerned that the landlord had issued the final balance without having the supporting invoices.
5. it had been raised in the previous year that the landscaping contract was not being managed as all the planting had died. He said he did not know how often the windows were being cleaned. He considered the cost in the budget for the window cleaning indicated that they should be cleaned more than the one-off clean that they had.
6. the concierge service was not introduced because of ASB, but because of the failure to the certain entry points to lock/close the property, which would be covered by insurance and warranties. He said that at some point, the insurance and warranties stopped paying. He said at that point, the landlord should have carried out a S20 consultation.
7. the landlord had still failed to justify the sum of the deficit due.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated its stage 1 stance and added:
1. there was no requirement to use accrual accounting as stated in the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) guidance on residential service charges.
2. there was no requirement under the terms of the resident’s lease to audit the service charge accounts.
3. although a landlord was limited to recover service charges on costs incurred more than 18 months prior to them being demanded. This did not apply to payments on account. It said when a s20B notice was served it stopped the process, so any costs notified at that point could be collected outside of the 18-month period.
4. the s20B related to Agent B’s accounts not being in a position to be reconciled by 30 September 2022, which was issued on 22 September. Once Agent B’s reconciliation had been done it would arrange for the resident to inspect the accounts.
5. it had sent a statement of actual service charge, along with the rights and obligations on 5 September 2022.
6. it acknowledged that it should have notified the residents of the change to the concierge service and “invited” observations.
7. It referred the resident to the neighbourhood team for his concerns about the management of the estate and said that if he challenged the reasonableness of the service charges for those services, he could make an application to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
The resident referred his complaint to this Service. He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, because:
1. he had concerns about the mismanagement of the service charges accounting and monitoring of the services that it received. The landlord added increases to the service charges and did not accrue the accounts. He had not received the actual spend yet for the 2021 to 2022 year.
2. despite including an audit fee in the budget, the landlord said that there was no requirement for the accounts to be audited.
3. the landlord failed to conduct a s20 consultation on the provision of a night concierge service.

Legislation and the landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord and tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) states:
1. under section 20 (S20) landlords should consult with residents where:
  1. The cost of the works would be over £250 for any resident contributing to the cost of the works (‘qualifying works’).
  2. The landlord intends to enter into a contract with a wholly independent organisation or contractor which will last more than 12 months (‘qualifying long term agreements’)
2. under Section 20(b), there is a limit on making demands for services charges:
  1. “If any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge were incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment of the service charge is served on the tenant, then the tenant shall not be liable to pay so much of the service charge as reflects the costs so incurred.”
  2. the above does not apply “if, within the period of 18 months beginning with the date when the relevant costs in question were incurred, the tenant was notified in writing that those costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge.”
3. Section 22 (s22) states landlord should provide residents with facilities to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents upon the resident’s requesting following receipt of the service charge summary.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) guidance states:
1. there is no recognised accounting framework for the service charge statement, including accrual based accounting and there is no requirement for any sort of balance sheet.
2. the relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. Costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period.
The landlord’s service charge policy stated:
1. variable service charges are determined by the lease and are assessed based on the actual costs incurred for the most recent financial year against the previous estimated costs of that year to set the coming year’s charge. If the actual cost exceeds the estimated cost, it can recover that additional cost from the residents. Conversely, if the actual costs were less than the estimates, it will refund the difference to the residents.
2. an audit fee was charged on homeowners only on variable service charges only and covers the costs of having service charges validated by external auditors
3. service charge payers would be consulted when there was going to be a change in services provided that it affected their charges, such as:
  1. informal consultation with residents when it wished to introduce or remove a service.
  2. it would carry out a s20 consultation with residents on variable service charges prior to the start of any long-term contract agreement (deemed to be more than 365 days) where the cost is likely to exceed £100 a year per household.
4. it would provide statements of actual service charge expenditure and balancing charges to those residents who are on variable service charge following the close of each financial year. The final statements would stand as a record of actual expenditure.
5. it was legally unable to recover any additional charges in a particular year if it failed to issue a final statement or a Section 20(b) notice within legal deadlines.

Assessment and findings

Scope

During the resident’s complaint, he raised concerns that the landlord was in breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 under sections 20, 20(b) and 22. He expressed concern that it failed to:
1. carry out a consultation on the implementation of the night concierge service.
2. serve him with a s20B notice when Agent B issued its notice.
3. provide supporting invoices for his 2021 to 2022 service charges.
The landlord explained in its complaint responses that it was not obligated to consult with the resident or issue a s20B notice. It also said that it was unable to provide the supporting invoices as Agent B had not reconciled its accounts at that time.
The FTT has authority to determine s20 and s22 matters. It can also determine whether service charges are reasonable, and whether a landlord has followed the correct procedure to be entitled to recover service charges. Given the difference in the parties’ positions on these points, this dispute requires a binding decision, which would confirm the position for both parties. Such a decision can be made by the FTT. Therefore, while the above is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit, the investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries relating to those matters.
It is noted that the resident has other concerns in relation to his service charges, such as the charges for staff uniforms and hot water/heating. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about his 2021 to 2022 service charges

Account reconciliation

In February 2022 the resident asked the landlord questions around the 2021 to 2022 estimate costs such as whether the costs that fell under warranties and insurances had been included in the budget. The landlord replied and said that it would respond to the resident within 10 working days.
However it replied on 8 April 2022, approximately 2 months later. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged the delay at the end of March. However the time taken to respond was a considerable departure from the 10 working day response that it had given the resident. This also caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he had to wait longer than anticipated for a response to his concerns. Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unknown, that there was one is a failing.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s questions were reasonable. It provided the resident with adequate information. It explained its service charge process and how the resident’s accounts worked as a variable service charge payer. It explained how Agent B’s accounts worked and set the resident’s expectations on the accounts can and may work in the future. All of which was appropriate.
In October 2022 the resident raised his concerns that the landlord had sent the final service charge balance but the accounts had not been reconciled. He was also concerned that he had paid more than the estimated sum. While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not reply to him at that time, which is a further failing.
In his formal complaints, the resident reiterated that he was concerned that the landlord had issued a final statement based on estimated costs, and it had not reconciled its accounts. He was concerned that it had not followed proper procedures.
The landlord’s complaint responses explained that it had reconciled its own accounts and paid for estimated costs to Agent B on behalf of the resident for 2012 to 2022. It explained that Agent B was still finalising its accounts and any account reconciliation or correction received after 31 March (which would be in this case) would be included in the year in which it was received.
It explained that Agent B did not administer the individual accounts, and it had paid Agent B the costs for 2012 to 2022 block. It then added its own costs, such as the sinking fund and building insurance. It explained that as a variable service charge payer, any over or under spend would be rectified once Agent B’s accounts were reconciled. It explained that Agent B’s accounts would be reconciled in the near future.
The landlord’s complaint responses were reasonable. Its explanations of how the service charge process worked were appropriate and were in line with its policy that stated that its final service charge statements would stand as a record of actual expenditure. Its responses on this matter demonstrated that it had investigated the issue and was focused on resolving the resident’s concerns, which was appropriate.
It also explained under the ICAW guidance there was no obligation to accrue its accounts and it was not obligated to audit the resident’s service charges as per his lease. It provided the resident with evidence and supporting information which was appropriate. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns that he was charged an audit fee when it did not carry out audits. The landlord’s service charge policy stated that the audit fee covered the costs of having the service charges validated by external auditors. However, as the landlord failed to demonstrate that it addressed this matter an order has been made in recognition of this failure.

The service charges deficit balance

In October 2022 the landlord explained that the deficit on the final balance was because the resident’s estimated costs were lower than they should have been. The resident followed up his concerns a few days later. He said that he was concerned that he had paid more than the estimated sum when he purchased his home in April 2021. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord responded to his concerns, which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord reiterated its stance about the matter in its complaint responses. It explained it had underestimated Agent’s B’s budget at the time it had set the charges, which resulted in a deficit. It added that as the resident was a variable service charge payer any over or underspend would be rectified when Agent B’s accounts were reconciled. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable. It explained how the deficit had occurred and how in the future any overspend could be rectified. However, it is noted that the landlord had told the resident in April 2022 that he would have a credit on his final service balance. Therefore it is understandable that the resident was concerned when the final service balance showed a deficit. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for failing to issue the correct service charges estimates, which was reasonable.

The resident’s request to inspect the supporting invoices for the service charges

The final statement dated 5 September 2022, issued by the landlord stated how the resident could request the summary of the costs and any related costs in relation to the final service balance. It also explained that it would be able to provide residents with the invoices it received from managing agents. The resident requested such information on 13 September 2022. However, the landlord failed to respond to him in a timely manner which caused him time and trouble as he had to chase it for an update on 24 October. This is another failing that demonstrates that the landlord failed to respond to the resident within a timely manner in this case. Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to review its service requests responses in this area.
The landlord responded to the resident’s chaser and advised that the supporting invoices were not available as they had yet to be reconciled by Agent B. The landlord added that Agent B had served a section 20B notice. The landlord added that it hoped to complete the reconciliation in the “near future”. When the reconciliation was complete, it would be able to arrange for the facilities to inspect the accounts to be made available to the resident.
The final statement informed the resident of his right to request information relating to the service charge. As such, to learn that the information was not available, would have been disappointing for the resident. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the wording contained within its letter/statements to ensure that resident’s expectations are managed about the process of requesting supporting evidence.
The resident was unhappy with the response and asked for his concerns to be considered as a formal complaint. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it apologised if there had been confusion in providing the supporting invoices that made up the statement for 2021/22. It said that it was noted that it had provided the invoice which related to the budget for 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2022. It added that the deficit from its final accounts from 2021/22 was as a result of its underestimation of Agent B’s budget for the same period. As the service charge accounts for 2021/22 only had the estimate charges from Agent B, there would have been no reconciled accounts for this period – so there were no invoices or documents to be inspected. It added that once Agent B had completed its reconciliation, it would be able to arrange for the resident to inspect the accounts.
While it is noted that the landlord stated that Agent B had not reconciled its accounts nor had the supporting invoices, the resident made a clear request under s22 of the LTA (1985) Act on 13 September 2022. Under the legislation, the landlord had one month to provide the information. It is acknowledged that the managing agent held the relevant information. However, the Ombudsman recommends that landlords should ensure they are proactive in pursuing managing agents for meaningful account information in relation to service charges to ensure it is provided in a timely manner. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord did so. That it did not was a failing within the process, which limited the resident from exercising his right and receiving a formal response under s22. It is noted that the landlord told the resident that it would arrange for him to inspect Agent B’s records and invoices once it had reconciled the accounts. However this was an inadequate response that was not in keeping with its obligations under the Act. There was therefore maladministration by the landlord. Section 25 of the Act states that it is a summary offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to perform a duty imposed by section 21, 22 or 23 of the Act. We cannot establish whether the landlord had “reasonable” excuse and therefore whether or not an offence has been committed. However, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice in relation to this. We have however, ordered a sum of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failing we have identified.

Issuing of the section 20B notice

In October 2022, the landlord told the resident that Agent B had issued a s20B notice as it was unable to reconcile its accounts by the deadline of 30 September 2022. In his formal complaint, the resident raised his concerns that although Agent B had “served the s20B onto the landlord”, it had not served one onto him. Therefore it was in breach of its service charges legislative obligations.
While the landlord provided further explanation about the s20B process in its response to the resident’s complaint, it did not directly address his comments that Agent B had not served a s20B notice on him. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling and a missed opportunity to address the concerns raised by the resident.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not stipulate how a s20B notice should be serve. It also does not stipulate whether a leaseholder should be informed of the notice by a managing agent, where relevant, or the landlord. It simply states that “the tenant” should be “notified in writing that costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by payment of the service charge”. It is acknowledged that Agent B did not notify the resident directly about the s20B notice directly. However, the landlord did inform the resident of it on 24 October 2022. The landlord’s correspondence at this time could reasonably have provided the resident with more information about the implications of this; however, the evidence demonstrates that the resident was appropriately informed that the s20B notice had been served. Given that the landlord’s communication could reasonably have been improved, we have found that there was a failing.
However, it is noted that in what appears to be late 2023 or early 2024, the landlord informed residents that it would advise of any s20B notices at the time of when it issued its statements at the end of September. This was reasonable and suggested that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to implement new ways of effectively communicating with its residents, which is welcomed.

The resident’s enquiries into the night concierge service and associated charges

In February 2022 the resident raised his concerns that charges related to the increase in concierge hours were added to his service charges. He said that he was told that costs would be recovered by the warranties and insurances, because there had been security issues on the estate. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not respond. This is a failing that caused the resident time and trouble as he had to chase the landlord for a response to his concerns at the end of March. He reiterated his concerns and added that the increase to the concierge (from 12 hours to 24 hours) was a temporary measure and if it was going to be a permanent arrangement, the landlord should have consulted with him first.
Although the landlord replied at the beginning of April, it did not address the resident’s specific concerns as outlined above. This meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for its response again in mid-April. Which caused him further time and trouble.
While it is unclear, the evidence available demonstrates that the landlord did not respond to the resident, which is a further failing. The evidence provided suggests that no further contact was made between the landlord and resident in the following months about the matter until September 2022.
In mid-September 2022 the resident reiterated his concerns that he had not been consulted about the increase in hours (and therefore in charges) of the concierge service. The landlord responded to him on 24 October 2022. It said that the increase in hours to the concierge service was not a “qualifying long term agreement” as the staff were employed by Agent B. While it is not the Ombudsman remit to decide the reasonableness of the increase to the resident’s services charges. Taking into consideration the gap in contact, it is clear that the landlord did not respond to the resident within a timely manner. While the reason for the delay is unknown, that there was one is a failing.
The resident raised his concerns that he was not consulted about the increase of service charges within in his formal complaints. In its responses the landlord stated that it did not need to consult with the resident under s20 because the service did not qualify as long-term agreement. However, it acknowledged that it should have notified the residents of the change.
The increase of the concierge service from 12 hours to 24 hours would inevitably increase the resident’s service charges considerably. While it is noted that the service started as a temporary measure, the evidence available demonstrates that the service continued for prolonged period of time. It does not suggest that the landlord monitored or reviewed the situation in relation to cost implications internally or alongside its residents. Given the considerable increase to the hours and therefore charges, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have informed/consulted with the residents initially and during the temporary extended service. This would have satisfied itself and the residents that it was taking reasonable steps to monitor and review the matter. This would have also demonstrated that it took the costs implications in relation to the night concierge service seriously and was ensuring the service was value for money while taking into consideration the issues, whether it was ASB or security issues, into account.
The landlord’s service charges policy stated that it would informally consult with residents when it wished to introduce or remove a service. However, it is silent on the issue when there is a “need” to increase the frequency (thus charges) of an existing service, whether it be temporarily or permanently. This investigation has highlighted a potential process gap which should be considered.
Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to review its service charge policy and other related policies to ensure that residents are reasonably notified/consulted with when an increase of service would considerably affect its residents service charge costs.
As previously stated, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the landlord should have carried out a s20 consultation. This matter is best placed with the courts or the FTT. However, the initial provision of the night concierge went beyond a 365 day period. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided reassurances to the residents that it would take reasonable steps to consult with them, if it appeared that the night concierge would be a longer term agreement. That it did not was a failing.
However, our investigation shows that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s queries about the night concierge in a timely manner, which caused him time, trouble, distress and inconvenience. It acknowledged that it would have been reasonable for it have carried out some sort of consultation about the extended service. However, there is no evidence that it had learnt lessons and had taken on board the resident’s feedback and the issues highlighted in this case. Therefore we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquires into the night concierge service.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries into his 2021 to 2022 service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that he was not consulted about the increased service charges for the night concierge service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £550 compensation. This comprises of:
  1. £300 for the time, trouble caused by its inadequate handling of the resident’s concerns about his 2021 to 2022 service charges.
  2. £100 for the time, trouble caused by its inadequate handling of the resident’s concerns that he was not consulted about the night concierge service.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its inadequate handling of the resident’s concerns that he was not consulted about the night concierge service.
3. contact the resident to discuss whether he would like to inspect the supporting invoices in relation to the 2021 to 2022 service charges.
4. contact the resident to discuss the reasons behind the audit fee charge.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, taking into consideration the failings outlined in this report, the landlord should carry out a review of its service charge policy and other related policies. In doing so, it should review:
1. its notification/consultation process, taking into consideration:
  1. temporary and permanent changes in existing services.
  2. effective monitoring and reviewing processes.
  3. effective communication with its residents.
2. review its response times to resident’s service charge enquiries within the last year. Where it identifies any failings, it should complete an action plan to improve the service.