Milton Keynes City Council (202318498)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318498

Milton Keynes City Council

25 March 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:
   1. the increase in service charges relating to heating
   2. the landlord’s handling of an assessment of support available to the resident

Background

2. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor. The block is heated using a district heating system, with all residents paying an equal share of the cost.
3. On 24 February 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents in the block about the rent and service charges for 2023/24. On 17 April the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the increase in the heating element of the service charges. He said that he was in receipt of benefits and could not afford the increase.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 May 2023. It confirmed it had reviewed the service charges and reduced his heating charge from £63.32 per week to £42.40 per week.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 25 July 2023, saying the complaint had not been fully investigated. He said he was unhappy with the way the landlord had dealt with his request for support.
6. In its stage 2 response, sent on 11 August, the landlord said:
   1. the annual rent and service charge increase was carried out in accordance with The Rent Standard regulations set out by the government
   2. it operates a variable service charge regime and the resident was part of an ongoing consultation
   3. when setting the charges for 2023/24 it said it had to take into account the considerable increase in utility costs
   4. it requested bank statements from the resident so it could carry out an assessment to look at a discretionary housing payment or an application for a support fund
   5. it had not yet received the bank statements so was unable to progress this as it could not make a full assessment of his circumstances
   6. it acknowledged that the member of staff originally dealing with this took unexpected leave which meant that some of the resident’s emails could not be accessed
   7. the new person dealing with matters requested bank statements again, which it did not receive
7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He contacted us on 20 November 2023 and asked us to investigate the complaint.
8. The landlord has confirmed that the charges have since reduced, with the charges reducing to £8.09 per week from 7 April 2025. It said that as part of its consultation, 15% of all communal heat network charges can be considered communal. This has allowed it to move this portion of costs to communal gas and electricity charges which are eligible for housing benefit. During a phone call with us prior to investigation the resident also confirmed that the charges had reduced significantly.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
10. According to paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
11. The resident is unhappy with how much the heating element of his service charge increased to in 2023/24. The First Tier Tribunal assesses resident’s liability to pay service charges. It would consider whether the increase in service charges was applied fairly. For the reason set out above, the resident’s complaint about the level of increase in service charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
12. The resident can contact the Leasehold Advisory Service for more information about the First Tier Tribunal.

Assessment of support

13. The landlord’s tenancy handbook says that residents should let it know as soon as possible if they are struggling to pay their rent. It says that help is available and provides a phone number and website for residents to get advice.
14. The landlord wrote to all residents on 24 February 2023 setting out the rent and service charges for 2023/24. This letter reiterated the information about the cost of living support that may be available, in line with its tenancy handbook. However, it did not provide any information about the First Tier Tribunal, or explain that the resident could use this to challenge the increase should he wish to. We have seen no evidence that this information has been provided to the resident in any written communications, which was not appropriate.
15. The resident attended a service charge review meeting held by the landlord on 1 March 2023. Following this, on 5 April, the landlord sent him a cost of living factsheet which provided information on support available, which was an appropriate action.
16. The resident raised his complaint on 17 April 2023. He said that he was now paying £8 per day for gas. He was unhappy that no risk assessment was carried out before the increase and said he could not afford this. An internal email of the landlord on 20 April said that he had been referred to its Tenancy Sustainment team, which was a reasonable step for it to take. This team provides specialist tenancy support for residents, including help with applying for grants and discretionary funding.
17. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it asked the resident via email on 4 May 2023 for bank statements, but it had not received these. It said it needed these in order for it to fully assess his current finances, to assess what support he may be eligible for. This was a reasonable request by the landlord. The person originally dealing with him had then had to go off work unexpectedly.
18. On 11 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it had reviewed other similar blocks of flats. It agreed to lower his weekly charge for heating from £62.32 to £42.40. It did say, however, that usage in his block appeared to be higher. In its stage 1 response of 19 May the landlord explained how the service charges were calculated and confirmed the revised heating charge.
19. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the new person assigned to his case had asked for bank statements again on 8 June 2023, which it said it still had not received. Again, the landlord has not provided a copy of this correspondence.
20. On 7 August 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident it would be making a referral to its Tenancy Sustainment team. However, it had said it would be doing this in April, so it is not clear why it needed to do this again, and it did not explain why this team had not yet provided support, which was not appropriate. It said it would go through his income and expenditure, with a view to potentially making an application for additional funding to support him. It said it would contact him by early the next week, however it has not provided any evidence of any further contact with the resident to discuss support, which was not appropriate. Failure to follow through on promises can undermine the landlord and tenant relationship.
21. In its stage 2 response of 11 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged it had been unable to access all previous records when the person originally dealing with the case was off work. It was not appropriate that it was unable to access full records. This highlights a weakness in its record-keeping which resulted in the resident being asked for the duplicate information.
22. The landlord said the resident had told it that he had been told he should move to universal credit, which he did not feel was appropriate. The landlord said that the person dealing with his case did not recall suggesting this but said they would have spoken about benefits in general, which was reasonable.
23. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of an assessment of support available to the resident. The landlord has failed to provide records to show that it followed up with the resident after its stage 2 response. We appreciate that the landlord did request bank statements from the resident on at least 2 occasions. We have not seen evidence that these were provided so that it could carry out a full financial assessment. However, its record-keeping caused delays and information being requested on multiple occasions, causing inconvenience to the resident.
24. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with information about his right to refer the service charge increase to the First Tier Tribunal. It would have been appropriate for it to have included this with the increase letter and in its complaint responses.
25. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100. This amount has been awarded with the landlord’s compensation guidance in mind to recognise the inconvenience to the resident and damage caused to its relationship with him.
26. In relation to ongoing support, as the charges have since reduced and been restructured, no order has been made in relation to this.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the level of increase in rent and service charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of an assessment of support available to the resident.

Orders

29. The landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused
    2. apologise in writing for the failures identified within this report
    3. provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report

Recommendation

30. The landlord to consider including information about the First Tier Tribunal in its communications about rent and service charges.