Your Housing Limited (202313294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313294

Your Housing Group Limited

31 July 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. Concerns about his service charge.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord in 2017. He lives in a flat within a block of flats.
The landlord is a housing association.
From 2020 to 2023 the resident contacted the landlord several times about the increase of his service charge and said costs had been added on for services that he was not receiving.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 and 23 March 2023, and 6 April 2023, to raise complaints about his service charge. He was concerned that his service charge from April 2023 was increasing from £7.45 to £48.33. He said he was being incorrectly charged for rubbish removal, gas and water, the electricity costs had significantly increased, and the window cleaning was not being carried out every month. The resident asked the landlord if it was using the service charge to offset the costs of running the shops and offices on the estate.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged 2 complaints, one for the issues the resident raised about his service charge and one for the attendance issues for the communal and window cleaning.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response regarding the service charge complaint. In its response it:
1. Apologised for the delay in sending its reply.
2. Said it would not charge the resident for services he did not receive. The cost for rubbish removal had been removed from the 2023/24 service charge budget.
3. Said since September 2022 it had seen increases of around 350% for utility costs. It needed to pass on the increase in electricity costs via the service charge. It said it would review the bills from its energy provider after the first quarter and if there was an opportunity to reduce the charges it would.
4. Provided contact details for its money advice team who could provide the resident with support and advice.
On 28 April, 25 May and 21 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord had charged him for services he had not received since 2017 and his complaints were never fully addressed. He raised concerns that the landlord was not calculating the service charge correctly.
On 18 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In its response it:
1. Said the costs included in the service charge was split between 19 properties. The landlord pays the cost for 3 houses that no longer pay a service charge. The resident therefore pays 1/19th of the costs.
2. Considered the charges the resident had raised concerns about from the year 2017 to 2022. It confirmed which charges were removed and any costs that needed to be refunded would show in the next years’ service charge budget.
3. Said it would send the resident the service charge accounts for 2022/2023 by 31 October 2023.
4. Offered the resident £150 compensation, which was broken down as:
  1. £100 for inconvenience caused.
  2. £50 for time and trouble.
On 18 October 2023 the resident told the landlord he had not received a response from his complaint about the window and communal cleaning.
On 27 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response regarding the window and communal cleaning. In its response it said it:
1. Would investigate the resident’s complaint that the cleaning services were not carried out 2020/2021 in his other complaint about the service charge.
2. Had received evidence from the cleaning company that the communal areas had been cleaned fortnightly. However, the company could not provide evidence it had cleaned the windows monthly.
3. Would carry out regular inspections of the cleaning services going forward.
4. Offered £60 compensation which was broken down as:
  1. £30 for the failure to carry out a service.
  2. £30 as a gesture of good will.
On 31 October 2023 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and would take the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
On 8 November 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and said ‘to review the issues raised in your complaint, I have investigated and made the following findings’. It said:
1. In its stage 1 complaint response it found service failure because the cleaning company could not provide evidence it had cleaned the windows. The £60 compensation was for this service failure. The cleaning company provided evidence that they carried out the communal cleaning.
2. The cleaning company’s attendance in 2020/21 would be dealt with in the resident’s service charge complaint. The cleaning company caught up with any missed appointments. If the resident has evidence this was not done it would consider further compensation.
The resident replied on the same day and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response.
The resident has told the Ombudsman at the date of our investigation the cleaning company was not cleaning the windows monthly.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that some of the complaint issues are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Under paragraph 42(d) the Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, concern the level of a service charge or the amount of a service charge increase. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT(PC)). In the resident’s complaints to the landlord, he raised concerns that:
1. The landlord was not calculating the costs included in the service charge correctly.
2. The landlord was not dividing the costs included in the service charge fairly between the residents.
3. The costs relating to the shops and offices in the building were included in the resident’s service charge.
4. The service charge was too high for the services the residents were receiving, this included the fires protection equipment and the electricity costs.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the above issues raised by the resident as they relate to the level, reasonableness, and liability to pay service charges. The resident would be advised to seek legal advice in relation to how to proceed with these issues. This investigation has instead focused on the steps the landlord took to investigate the resident’s concerns about his service charge and the quality of the services provided. We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised issues with his service charge that date back to 2017. This investigation has focussed on the complaint issues the resident raised with the landlord in April 2023 about his service charges from the years 2020/2021 to 2023/2024. We will investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these issues from March 2023 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in November 2023. This is because as the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.

The landlord’s obligations

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the service charge is variable. It says the resident must pay the service charge for the services currently received. The agreement does not list what these services are. The agreement says the landlord can vary, add to, or reduce the services provided following consultation with affected residents. Residents will be given 4 weeks’ notice of any change.
The landlord’s service charge policy states prior to the start of each financial year, the landlord will estimate the sum likely to be spent in providing services over the coming year. That will be the service charge the resident pays for the year. After the end of the financial year the landlord will calculate the costs that were actually incurred for that year and compare this to the estimated charge that was set. Where the service charge that was set exceeds, the actual costs incurred, the service charge will be reduced for the coming year. This is referred to as a surplus. Where the service charge is less than the costs incurred, the estimated service charge for the following year will be increased. This shortfall is referred to as a deficit.
The service charge policy states that for each site, block, scheme or estate the cost of services will usually be apportioned by the number of dwellings where the service is provided.
The landlord’s communal cleaning and window cleaning service agreement states that the communal areas and windows (commercial and residential) will be cleaned as set out in the cleaning frequency schedule. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of this schedule but has said the windows are cleaned monthly and the communal areas are cleaned fortnightly.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states the landlord will pay up to £100 for service failure, distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble. The procedure states if the landlord fails to provide a service for which the resident pays a service charge, compensation may be awarded. The compensation amount will be equivalent to the cost charged for the service they did not receive. The amount will be deducted from the next years charges, and this will be provided to all residents affected.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge

Service charge complaint

The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about his service charge on 9 and 23 March 2023. On 23 March 2023 the landlord said it would investigate the resident’s concerns and review the costs it had included in the 2023/2024 budget. The landlord acted reasonably by reissuing the 2023/2024 budget on 24 March 2023. It removed costs for services the resident did not receive, which reduced the service charge from £48.33 to £20.08pw. However, it failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about how these costs got included into the budget, why services had not been provided and why costs had increased. The landlord failed to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord was in regular contact with the resident throughout the complaints process, however, its responses did not address all of the resident’s concerns. This led to the resident chasing updates. The evidence shows the landlord did not address why the 2023/2024 service charge budget included incorrect costs until June 2023 when it told the resident it was due to a new IT system. The landlord failed to explain how the electricity costs were miscalculated until November 2023, this was 8 months after the resident raised his initial complaint. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and leaving the resident without a resolution to his complaint for a prolonged period.
The Ombudsman is unable to decide whether the level of a service charge was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of the costs the resident was querying, including details of service inspections, invoices or other relevant information about the costs incurred. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to provide clear information about a charge that is payable. When queries are raised about service charges, the landlord should be able to respond in a timely way providing the information in a consumer-friendly format.
The evidence shows that the landlord gave conflicting information about how it proportioned the costs within the service charge. On 23 May 2023 the landlord apologised that the wording was incorrect on its budget and account documents and assured the resident it split the cost between the number of properties that received the services. In June 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had reviewed all the costs included in the service charge since April 2017 and confirmed it had not charged for any costs relating to the shops and offices or for the block which the resident does not access. However, it was not until its stage 2 complaint response and its further communication with the resident in October 2023, that the landlord fully explained how it proportioned the costs. Although there was a delay in the landlord providing a full response on this issue, its response to the resident was reasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would send the resident the service charge accounts for 2022/2023 by 31 October 2023. The landlord failed to do this which resulted in the resident chasing an update. It was sent to the resident in November 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident that it would be happy to provide supporting documentation which confirmed the costs it was charging relate to the communal area of the flats and not to the shops and offices. This showed the landlord was trying to rebuild its relationship with the resident. However, as the resident’s complaint had been on-going since March 2023 the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided this information sooner. There is also no evidence the landlord explained to the resident how he can request this supporting documentation.

Cleaning services complaint

Once the landlord received the resident’s complaint about the communal and window cleaning, it acted appropriately by visiting the resident on 11 April 2023 to discuss the quality of the cleaning services being provided. The landlord’s internal records state that it checked the cleaners timesheet in the building which showed it had cleaned the communal areas every fortnight. However, there is no evidence the landlord investigated or responded to the resident’s reports that the window cleaning was not being carried out monthly. In June 2023 the resident provided the landlord with photographs to show the windows were not being cleaned. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about the window cleaning until it provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2023. This was an unreasonable delay which left the resident with no resolution to this part of his complaint for over 7 months.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 27 October 2023 the landlord said it could not consider the attendance of the cleaning company in 2020/2021 as this would be covered in the resident’s complaint about service charge, however, that complaint had already completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. There is no evidence the landlord investigated this element of the resident’s complaint.
Also in its stage 1 response the landlord said the cleaning company could not provide evidence that they had cleaned the windows, but it did not state for what period of time this related to. The landlord did provide the Ombudsman with estate inspection records for the window cleaning, but this was from March 2023 onwards. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to ensure the services it was charging for were being completed to a satisfactory standard.
The landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for the failure to carry out the window cleaning. Its compensation amounts procedure states that if it fails to provide a service for which the resident pays a service charge, it will deduct the cost charged for the service it did not provide from the next years charges. There is no evidence the landlord considered this in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to carry out on investigation of the window cleaning services it provided between April 2020 to date and consider if it needs to issue a refund of the costs it charged onto its next budget.
In summary the landlord failed to address all the resident’s complaint issues within its complaints procedure. Although it was in regular contact with the resident it failed to fully address the resident’s concerns in a timely and effective way, which led to the resident chasing updates. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a breakdown of the costs he was querying, and there was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for some of these failings. It offered the resident £150 compensation in its stage 2 response for the inconvenience, time and trouble for incorrectly calculating the service charge. It also offered £60 for the failure to provide window cleaning. However, the landlord has not shown any learning as there are still elements of the resident’s complaint that remain outstanding 16 months later. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience caused to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

On 9 and 23 March 2023 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the cost of his service charge and that he was being charged for services that were not being provided. The resident expressed clear dissatisfaction, however, the landlord failed to acknowledge a complaint until 6 April 2023. This was 20 working days later, which was outside its target timescale of 5 working days. This was an inappropriate delay.
The landlord told the resident it would open a formal complaint for the resident’s concerns about his service charge, and an informal complaint for his concerns about the cleaning services. The resident expressed clear dissatisfaction about the cleaning services, the landlord acted inappropriately by not accepting this issue as a formal complaint at that time. All the issues the resident raised were about his service charge, opening 2 separate complaints caused unnecessary confusion for the resident, and time and trouble navigating 2 complaints.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 April 2023, this was just outside its target timescale of 10 working days. The delay caused the resident to chase a response to his complaint on 25 April 2023. The landlord’s internal records show that it had thought it had responded. If the resident had not chased a response the delay may have been longer. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively manage the resident’s complaint and keep its records updated.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 28 April 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge this within its 5 working day timescale. It contacted the resident on 23 May 2023 responding to the issues the resident had raised in his escalation request. The resident asked to escalate his complaint again in May and August 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage his expectations. This caused the resident frustration, time and trouble chasing a response, and delayed him being able to seek assistance from the Ombudsman.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint on 1 September 2023, 86 days later. This was a significant delay. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2023, which was outside its 20-working day target timescale. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to extend its response timescale in line with its customer feedback policy, however, it said it would respond by 16 October 2023, which it failed to do.
On 27 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s complaint about the communal and window cleaning. This was 160 working days after the resident raised the complaint. This was a significant delay. It is noted the landlord only acknowledged this complaint and issued its response after the resident chased an update on 19 October 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise or offer any redress to the resident for its delay in accepting and investigating this part of the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 October 2023 stating he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The landlord failed to acknowledge an escalation of the complaint to stage 2. However, it contacted the resident on 8 November 2023 and said it had ‘reviewed the issues raised’. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states it is not appropriate for landlord’s to have extra stages in their complaints procedure. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to offer the resident a formal review of its stage 1 complaint response and delaying the resident’s right to seek assistance from the Ombudsman.
Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord accepting the resident’s complaint. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. There was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses for the complaint about the service charge, and its stage 1 complaint response for the cleaning services. Although it reviewed the complaint about the cleaning services, it failed to offer a formal stage 2 complaint response. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling failings, there was a lack of learning as there were repeated failings, and it did not offer suitable redress for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £350 compensation. This is in addition to the £150 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response dated 18 October 2023. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is broken down as:
  1. £150 for the distress, inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. If it has not already done so the landlord should re-offer the resident the £150 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response dated 18 October 2023.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident providing a written breakdown of the current service charge, with reference to the area of the estate that these charges relate to and which properties pay for these services. This should include evidence of why costs have increased. This will equip the resident with the information he needs to challenge any aspects of the service charge that he feels are unreasonable or have been levied in error, and to seek legal advice in relation to his complaint that he feels he is being charged too much for his service charge and that he is being charged for services in relation to the shops and offices on the estate.
2. Review its provision of the communal and window cleaning from 2020/2021 as it failed to address this part of the resident’s complaint in its complaint procedure. In line with its compensation procedure the landlord should then review if compensation needs to be awarded for its failure to provide the cleaning services for the years 2020 to 2023. Any amount of compensation awarded would be deducted from the following years charges. The landlord must write to the Ombudsman and the resident with the outcome of this review and its findings.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record-keeping practices, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
The landlord should review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond to formal complaints appropriately. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.