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

Aster Group Limited (202320887)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320887

Aster Group Limited

31 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries and concerns around service charges.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner. She owns a share of the property and rents the remaining portion from the landlord. Her lease began in 2021 and she is the property’s first occupant. The property is a 1-bedroom house in a new-build estate. A developer owns the estate. It has appointed a management company (‘the agent’) to run the estate on its behalf. The resident contributes to the agent’s estate management costs through annual service charges. 
  2. In August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident about her service charges for the previous financial year. It confirmed she had been overcharged for services linked to the agent. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2022 to query its letter. At this point, she told the landlord that planted areas near her home had not been maintained. She felt the landlord was responsible and she should not have to pay any corresponding service charges. The landlord liaised with the agent about grounds maintenance on the estate later that month.
  3. From March 2023 onwards, the resident started to correspond with the landlord again. Her contact was prompted by another letter about service charges. She raised some related concerns and reported that the maintenance issue was ongoing. She made a formal complaint to the landlord in early July 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response later that month. It partly upheld 1 aspect of her complaint. It apologised for any confusion that may have been caused by its previous communications. It did not award the resident any compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint in August 2023. She felt the landlord should improve various aspects of its performance. The landlord issued a stage 2 response during the same month. It said the agent had replaced its contractor and the new contractor had started working at the estate. It also said it had not identified any failures during its investigation. Later, the resident’s home was damaged in an unrelated incident. Subsequently, in November 2023, the landlord arranged a cash refund for a portion of her previous service charges.
  5. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in March 2025. She largely reiterated her previous concerns. She said the landlord overlooked 1 of the complaint points she had raised during her complaint. It was understood she felt its partial refund of service charges was inadequate. In addition, she felt the landlord should compensate her for various failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In line with our remit, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. While these issues are out of scope for our assessment, we can consider how a landlord responded to a resident’s concerns about these issues. The resident may wish to contact the Leasehold Advisory Service for advice about the rent calculation terms in her lease. The First–Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can consider disputes about the level of variable service charges.
  2. It is noted the resident has concerns about the agent, which played a significant role in her complaint. The agent is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This means her concerns about its activities are also outside the scope of our investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries and concerns around service charges

  1. In August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident about her service charges. Its letter was an end-of-year statement for the financial year 2021-22. It said there was a discrepancy between its budget for the year and the actual costs it had incurred subsequently. The discrepancy related to the agent’s costs and management fees. The landlord confirmed the resident’s service charge account was due a “refund” of around £20 per month for the full year in question. It did not explain what had caused the discrepancy. There is no indication it was obliged to provide this information. However, subsequent events suggest it may have helped the resident. Its statement did include information about how and when it would process the refund. This was appropriate.
  2. On 5 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about its letter. She asked when she would receive a refund. She also asked why it had increased its service charges for the current financial year. She said a planted area near the property had not been maintained and any related service charges were incorrect. The landlord replied 2 days later. It said the overcharged funds would be credited to the resident’s service charge account from April 2023 (when the next financial year started). It also said the agent was responsible for managing the plants near the property, and its costs would be reflected in her service charges. In relation to the discrepancy, the landlord said it had expected the agent to provide a service when it set its previous budget, but it had not done this). It also said its budgets often rose with inflation. It did not clearly address the resident’s concerns about incorrect maintenance charges. This was inadequate.
  3. The resident made further enquiries on the same day. She was unhappy that the overcharged funds would not be returned for several months. She said she had maintained plants near the property herself due to the landlord’s lack of maintenance. She also said some grass verges were overgrown during the summer months. She reiterated that she should not have to pay any maintenance charges. She asked the landlord to address this issue. The landlord replied on the same day. It reiterated some of the information it had previously given the resident. It also said she should direct any estate related issues to its local representative. It did not provide any contact details for this person. Subsequent events show it missed an opportunity to help the resident. The landlord was not sufficiently solution focused at this stage in the dispute.
  4. The resident subsequently asked the landlord how she could contact its local representative. The landlord supplied an email address around 1 week later. This prompted another round of correspondence between the parties, who largely restated their previous positions. The resident felt it was unfair that the landlord was “sitting on” her overcharged funds. The landlord said its approach to refunds was governed by her lease agreement. The lease agreement says the landlord will hold the resident’s service charge funds “in trust”. It also says the resident “shall not be entitled to the return of any excess”. This is because the landlord will offset any excess funds “against future payments”. These terms confirm it gave the resident appropriate information about the refund.
  5. On 21 September 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the wording in the landlord’s end-of-year statement. She said there was a difference between a credit and a refund. She also said she would check the landlord’s subsequent correspondence to ensure it had returned the funds. She said she was waiting for it to respond to her concerns about a lack of maintenance. The landlord replied on the following day. It said it had referred the matter to the agent and it would update the resident in due course. Based on the period between 5 and 22 September 2022, it took the landlord around 12 working days to notify the agent about the resident’s concerns. It is unclear why it took more than 2 weeks to do so, given the straightforward nature of the query.
  6. The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents” report was published in March 2022. It says landlords should be proactive in pursuing managing agents for meaningful account information relating to service charges. The same approach applies in this case. Since it was not responsible for grounds maintenance in the estate, the landlord should have promptly raised the matter with the relevant party (the agent) on the resident’s behalf. The above identified delay of around 12 working days was unreasonable in the circumstances. The resident repeated her concerns to the landlord several times during the interim period. It is reasonable to conclude this was both avoidable and frustrating for her.
  7. The agent emailed the landlord on 29 September 2022. It said its gardening contractor visited the estate on 15 and 26 September 2022. It also said the contractor should have cut the grass but it had postponed these works. Ultimately, the agent said it had asked its contractor to cover all aspects of its contracted works during visits. It is noted the agent did not refer to any planted areas in its email. It is therefore unclear if it had engaged with the resident’s specific concerns. There is a significant gap in the evidence at this point.
  8. In mid-February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident again. It said it would increase its rent and service charges for the upcoming financial year (2023-24). The resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2023. She said its letter had not mentioned a refund to her account. She felt it had not returned the overcharged funds. It is noted her comments about the letter were accurate. It is also noted the letter was not a statement and it was issued before the new financial year had started. Contact records suggest the landlord replied on the same day. It did not provide a copy of its relevant correspondence. This points to a problem with its record keeping. The resident reiterated her concerns subsequently. This suggests she was not satisfied with its initial response to her email.
  9. At this point, the resident asked the landlord to confirm that the increase applied to each of its property types (rather than just shared ownership homes). She wanted it to supply information that proved this. The landlord replied on the following day. It provided a table that showed it would start offsetting the overcharged funds in April 2023. It said the resident would receive a reconciled statement (that presumably included the refund) in due course. It also said it could not provide rent figures for other homes due to data protection reasons. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider its data protection obligations.
  10. The resident replied on 18 March 2023. She said the landlord should revise its budgets due to a lack of maintenance. She reiterated her previous concerns about planted areas and a lack of grass cutting. She said she should not be charged for a service “that is not provided”. She said she was entitled to ask the landlord for information about its rent increase. She also said there had been several rent and service charge increases and she had lived at the property for less than 2 years. Her concerns were understandable in the circumstances.
  11. The landlord replied 2 days later. It said the agent’s charges would be refunded because it had not submitted any invoices for the relevant financial year. It supplied a supporting end-of-year statement to the resident. It also explained its different types of service charge. It said it was unable to provide any additional evidence as its budgets were specific to her property. It reiterated that she should contact its local representative about estate related issues. The local representative emailed the resident on 22 March 2023. They said they had discussed her maintenance concerns with the agent, and they felt the planted area was covered by the agent’s maintenance contract. Their email included a site plan. The landlord asked the resident for supporting images so it could dispute the maintenance works with the agent. This was a reasonable approach.
  12. The resident supplied supporting images on 28 March 2023. She exchanged further emails with the landlord on the following day. She said there was information missing from a spreadsheet it had provided. She also said that, during the interactions in 2022, it had told her to check her upcoming service charge information to make sure she had been refunded. She felt the landlord had given her incorrect information. From the evidence provided, there is a lack of information to support this assertion. The resident also said she had only seen the grass being cut on 2 occasions over the years. Subsequently, she reiterated her request for evidence relating to the landlord’s rent increase. The landlord relayed her supporting images to the agent on 3 April 2023. This was 4 working days after it had received them. This was a reasonable timescale.
  13. There was further correspondence between the parties around the same time. The landlord told the resident there was a blank cell in its spreadsheet because its rent was not a variable service charge. The resident replied that her rent was variable as it had increased by around £35 in less than 2 years. She also said there was “little to zero maintenance going on”. She referred to dead plants and “weeds as big as her dog”. She said this was a failure and the landlord was partly responsible. She referenced additional stress and the time she had spent chasing the matter with the landlord. Based on her comments, the landlord could have reasonably offered to raise a formal complaint at this point. We will consider its complaint handling in the relevant section below.
  14. On 12 April 2023 the landlord gave the resident an overview of its calculation  process for rent increases. It said her solicitor should have explained the process to her when she bought her share of the property. In addition, it said she should check the lease agreement and her completion documents for details of the specific calculation. It also said she would be receiving the overcharged funds back and no further credits would be added to her account. In response, the resident said its rent calculation “still wouldn’t add up properly”. She also said she had supplied images that showed a lack of grounds maintenance, and she would raise a complaint if the landlord was unable to help her. The evidence indicates the landlord’s service charge team was not aware she had recently supplied further images to the landlord. It points to a lack of coordination. The resident’s comments show this was frustrating for her.
  15. The parties restated their positions in further emails over the next few days. On 27 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident a relevant section from her lease agreement. It related to rent calculations. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide specific information about how it calculated her rent under the lease agreement. The evidence suggests the parties stopped corresponding about the rent increase at this stage. This indicates the landlord’s information may have resolved the resident’s related concerns. Ultimately, the landlord engaged with these concerns accordingly. It provided explanations and other information to the resident. This was appropriate.
  16. The landlord contacted the agent again around the same time. There were images attached to its email. This suggests it had received further photos from the resident. It said the images showed many weeds and patchy grass. It asked the agent to obtain a response from its contractor. It offered to attend a joint visit to the site with the agent. This was a proactive and reasonable approach from the landlord. On 28 April 2023 it provided a map to the agent. The evidence shows the resident had highlighted the problem areas on a plan of the estate. The landlord updated her several days later. It said the agent had told its contractor to address the planted areas on its next visit. It also said the resident should contact it if the problem persisted. This was also reasonable.
  17. The resident updated the landlord on 16 May 2023. She said a single weed had been removed but the rest had been left in place. She also said the soil was left in a mess and weeds were developing in a different location. She said it was “upsetting … to have to continually chase things”. The landlord replied the following day. It said it would notify the agent and push for a joint visit. This was a swift and proactive response. The agent apologised to the landlord on 24 May 2023. It said it was in the process of appointing a new contractor. However, it would ask its existing contractor to address the area again. It also said it was keen to arrange a joint visit. There is a gap in the evidence at this point.
  18. On 4 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had written to each of its homeowners in the area about their boundaries and responsibilities. The Ombudsman has not seen a first-hand account of its reasons for doing this. Its letter to the resident included an image of the property’s boundary. It said she should “tend to the area surrounding her property sympathetically”. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord sent similar letters to its other residents in the area. Later, the resident reported that these letters had caused tension with at least 1 of her neighbours. From the evidence provided, there is no indication the landlord could have reasonably predicted this outcome. As a result, we find it did not cause avoidable distress or inconvenience to the resident in respect of the neighbours.
  19. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 July 2023. She said weeds were “taking over the footpath” and “leaning over her boundary”. She felt it should adjust the boundaries to give residents ownership of the problem areas. She also felt it should reduce its service charges. She said her neighbour was “very upset” about the letter they had received from the landlord. She also said the landlord should not send “nasty letters” as it was charging for maintenance that was not being completed. She expanded on her complaint during an email to the landlord on 16 July 2023. At this point, she said its letter was patronising and it had upset her neighbours.
  20. On 27 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It addressed 6 separate complaint points. They broadly related to its service charges and related communication. The landlord partly upheld 1 aspect of the resident’s complaint. This was on the basis some of the wording in its communications may have caused confusion. This related to its use of the word “refund”. The landlord apologised to the resident. It did not award her any compensation. It said it had discussed the matter with its service charge team and would consider amending the wording it used in its letters. The landlord’s other key points at stage 1 were:
    1. In line with the lease agreement, it was repaying the overcharged funds to the resident’s account in the form of monthly credits. It had explained that any adjustments would show on its end-of-year statements. It had issued the resident a statement for the relevant year in late March 2022.
    2. It was willing to arrange a refund for the resident if she was owed further service charge funds in the future. However, it could not arrange a refund for the services that were previously overcharged because its “credits and apportionments” were already in place for the relevant financial year.
    3. The agent had appointed the contractor and the landlord was not responsible for either party. It would continue to pursue matters with the agent on the resident’s behalf. It had been chasing the agent about grounds maintenance issues since October 2022. The landlord was not responsible for any service failures. It was currently awaiting a response from the agent.
    4. It was sorry the resident felt it was blaming the agent. It had chased the agent multiple times. The agent had not always responded. The landlord had done all it could to pursue the matter. The agent had acknowledged the issues with its grounds maintenance service. It was appointing a new contractor.
    5. The resident could contact a senior member of the agent’s staff on a number that was provided. She may wish to discuss the reallocation of the estate’s land with the agent. This was not something that the landlord could agree on the agent’s behalf.
    6. It had increased the resident’s service charges in line with the lease agreement. It would adjust for any services that were not provided.
    7. It was sorry the resident felt its letter was patronising and unnecessary. It had written to her neighbours to confirm their boundaries and maintenance responsibilities, along with those of the agent. There were some differences across the landlord’s properties. It was also sorry to hear that its letters had “caused friction between the neighbours”. The landlord was happy to speak to the neighbours if they had any queries or concerns about its letters.
    8. It was sorry if the resident felt she had been asked to repeat information during her enquiries. Some of them were detailed and the landlord had needed to clarify some information. A number of its teams were involved and some of them used different systems. The landlord felt this may explain some of the repetition.
  21. The response contained accurate information about the landlord’s obligations and responsibilities. This was appropriate. It also included some helpful contact details. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that some of the repetition in the parties’ initial correspondence had arisen from an unreasonable lack of solution focus on its part. It should have recognised that it was responsible for some communication failures (mainly in September 2022) and these caused avoidable inconvenience for the resident. Having done so, it should have made a reasonable attempt to put things right for her. This aspect of its response was unreasonable. Given its accumulated failures, the landlord should have reasonably considered awarding the resident some compensation.
  22. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s response on 8 August 2023. She said it had used incorrect wording and its “may have caused confusion” approach was patronising. She also said she was prompted to request a breakdown because there was information missing from the landlord’s initial service charge letter in 2022. She felt the landlord should improve its processes. She said the maintenance issue had been ongoing for too long. She also said a planted area outside her home had still not been maintained. The resident’s other key points were:
    1. The landlord should provide actual refunds for the services that were not being provided. The resident had supplied various photos, emails and maps to support her concerns.
    2. The landlord had a website that displayed service charge information. It was “pointless” because it did not show charges or credits to the resident’s account.
    3. An unhappy neighbour had knocked on the resident’s door. The landlord should have acknowledged the upset its letters had caused. The relevant section of its response letter was also missing some punctuation.
    4. The level of repetition in the parties’ communication was factual rather than a perception on the resident’s part.
    5. The landlord should also supply a contact email address for the agent.
  23. The landlord chased the agent around 24 August 2023. It also issued a stage 2 response on this date. The response said the landlord would update the resident about the agent’s new contractor in due course. Otherwise, it largely restated the landlord’s position at stage 1. The landlord said it had not identified any service failures during its investigation. Its response was inadequate for the same reasons that we have outlined above (when we considered its stage 1 response). The response included an email address for the agent. The landlord later acknowledged this address was incorrect. This error is concerning. It is reasonable to conclude it caused some inconvenience for the resident.
  24. The landlord updated the resident on 30 August 2023. It relayed information it had recently received from the agent. It said the agent’s new contractor had started to work at the estate. It also said the agent had promised to check that the problem areas had been maintained. It told the resident that the agent might visit her during its inspection. The landlord’s correspondence shows it updated the resident in line with the commitment in its stage 2 response. This was appropriate.
  25. On 4 September 2023, the resident reported that the planted areas had still not been maintained. The landlord contacted the agent on the same day. This was swift action on its part. Subsequently, it told the resident that the agent had reportedly called on her but she did not answer the door. The resident was unhappy that the agent had visited her without prior warning. She wanted to know when the visit took place. There is no indication the landlord responded to her query subsequently. It is reasonable to conclude this was frustrating for her. The resident was also unhappy about a letter she had received from the landlord. She said its actual service charge had exceeded its budget. She reiterated that maintenance was not being done. She felt she had given it sufficient time to resolve matters. It is noted the landlord could influence the agent, but it was not in control of the estate’s maintenance services.
  26. On 12 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord a list of mistakes that she felt it had made. It included some more recent issues. She said there was a lack of communication between the landlord and the agent. She also said the landlord had not addressed her comments about the information which was available on its website. She referenced spelling and grammar issues in its letters. She also referenced the incorrect email address in its stage 2 response (by this time, the landlord had already apologised to the resident for the error). She felt it had broken the lease agreement based on its service charges and a lack of maintenance. The landlord chased the agent on the following day. This was a reasonable step to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about maintenance. Subsequently, the agent began to liaise directly with the resident.
  27. The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 18 September 2023 and 15 January 2024:
    1. The property was severely damaged during an unrelated incident. Ultimately, the landlord arranged a temporary move for the resident.
    2. The resident reported that the landlord and the agent were both responding to the same emails. Her correspondence indicates she may have received conflicting information from these parties.
    3. The resident requested a full refund of her service charges. She said she did not have a service charge account anymore because she had changed her payment method to direct debit.
    4. The agent updated the parties on 8 November 2023. It said it had issued a refund to the landlord. It confirmed this related to “works not completed” and it covered each of the landlord’s homes in the area. It said it would monitor its new contractor to ensure the problem areas were maintained.
    5. The landlord told the resident that it would offset the agent’s credit against her future charges in line with the lease. It said it supported her in her complaint about services that were not delivered. It acknowledged the volume of correspondence between the parties and the time she had spent on the matter. It said it was trying to obtain some compensation for her from the agent.
    6. The resident told the landlord it had promised her a refund in its stage 1 response. She said it was “supposed to” investigate its increased service charge costs as the related service was not being provided. She also said its lack of support was affecting her mental and physical health. It is noted the landlord had previously told her that its service charges often increased with inflation (in September 2022). 
    7. On 23 November 2023 the landlord told the resident it would not “pass on” any further service charges until she returned to her home. It said it was trying to arrange a (cash) refund due to her circumstances. It also said it would not usually do this as it was contrary to the relevant terms in the lease. It said the agent’s costs had risen with inflation and the increase was reflected in the landlord’s service charges. Its email suggests it was responsible for an administrative error at this point. It said the landlord had sent the resident another copy of the same form to complete again.
    8. The resident replied the landlord should refund all of the charges she had incurred from the time she moved in until the point when the property was damaged. She felt it had not explained why it was increasing its service charges. She reiterated that she also wanted compensation.
    9. On 28 November 2023 the landlord processed a service charge refund for the resident. The amount was £145.67. It covered part of the financial year 2022-23. The landlord says it had already offset some of the overcharged funds during the first 5 months of the year in line with the lease agreement. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to the contrary.
    10. With reference to its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident it could have arranged a cash refund at the end of the financial year. However, it had refunded the money early to be as accommodating as possible. It also said there were no other funds in her account to return. It said it had closed its complaint but it would pass the resident’s request for a refund to its complaints team.
    11. The resident reiterated her concerns to the landlord on 1 December 2023. She said its refund was not sufficient. She also said the landlord should not have closed her complaint. Around 6 weeks later, she chased the landlord because it had not responded to her email.
    12. Following her chaser, the landlord apologised to the resident. It said there had been a miscommunication between its departments. It also said it had already explained its position and it had nothing further to add. It said it was up to date with any service charge refunds and refunds usually took place during the following financial year. It also said it would address any further service charge issues when it completed its end-of-year accounts in April 2024. It felt it had followed its complaints procedure.
  28. The landlord’s refund in November 2023 was noted. It was not obliged to refund the resident in this way. The landlord showed it was mindful of her wider circumstances. It also demonstrated a degree of sensitivity in its actions. The landlord’s approach at this point represents good practice on its part.
  29. The landlord updated the Ombudsman in May 2024. It said it had returned further service charge funds to the resident’s account at the end of the financial year 2023-24. It also said it had offset these funds against the agent’s fees and costs. The landlord is entitled to do this under the lease. Later, the resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 28 March 2025. She largely reiterated her previous concerns.
  30. In summary, the landlord was responsible for a series of comparatively small failures during the resident’s complaint journey. It lacked a reasonable degree of solution focus and missed opportunities to help her at times. It was also responsible for some delays. The longest of these occurred in September 2022 and December 2023. It also provided an incorrect email address for the agent. These issues prompted additional contact from the resident. It is reasonable to conclude this was avoidable and inconvenient for her. There were other issues with the landlord’s communications and coordination. The evidence suggests it did not respond to the resident’s questions about the agent’s visit to her home and this was frustrating for her. There is also evidence of duplicated paperwork and potentially conflicting information. Given the impact of its various failures, the landlord’s apologies were not sufficient to put things right for the resident. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.
  31. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s relevant compensation procedure, and our own guidance on remedies. The landlord’s compensation procedure confirms it can make discretionary payments for service failures that result in distress and inconvenience for a resident. These criteria apply in this case. The landlord’s policy shows its calculations reflect the approach in our own remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. On 9 April 2023, the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s services. Among other issues, she referenced “stupid” letters that were “a waste of money and time”. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction … about [its] standard of service” or actions. The resident’s comments to the landlord in April 2023 met this criteria. However, there is no indication it offered to raise a formal complaint for her at this point. This is concerning. If it was unsure what to do, the landlord should have proactively asked the resident how she wanted to proceed. It did not do this. Its complaint handling at this point was therefore unreasonable.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 July 2023. Based on the period between 9 April and 7 July 2023, the evidence suggests the landlord contributed to an unreasonable delay of around 3 months. The resident was impacted because the landlord could have used its complaints process to address her concerns during the interim period. In mitigation, the resident’s subsequent correspondence shows she was aware of the landlord’s formal complaints process. On 12 April 2023 she told the landlord that she would complain if it was unable to help her. Overall, the evidence does not support a significant failure in respect of the landlord’s initial complaint handling.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 12 July 2023. This was 5 days after she raised it. This timescale was consistent with the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). It is reasonable to conclude the landlord logged the complaint at this point. Its acknowledgement confirmed it had allocated the complaint to its local representative. Soon afterwards, the resident objected to the landlord’s allocation decision. This was on the basis its representative had previously liaised with the agent about the maintenance issues. Her concerns about procedural fairness were understandable. The landlord should be mindful that perceived bias can potentially cause significant distress. In this case, it engaged with the resident’s objection and promptly reallocated the case. This was appropriate.
  4. The landlord updated the resident on 26 July 2023. This was 10 working days after it had logged her complaint. It said it needed more time to investigate and it was sorry about the delay. It also said it would respond within another 10 working days. This approach was in line with its complaints policy and therefore appropriate. Subsequently, it issued a stage 1 response on 27 July 2023. This was in line with the revised timescale that it gave to the resident. This too was appropriate.
  5. On 8 August 2023 the resident disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response. In her email, she raised some new concerns about its website. The landlord issued her a stage 2 acknowledgement 3 days later. This was a reasonable timescale. It subsequently issued a stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. This was 12 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request at stage 2. The landlord responded in line with its policy timescale. This was appropriate. However, its response did not mention the resident’s concerns about its website. The landlord should have addressed these in its stage 2 response, or raised a new formal complaint to address them. It was unfair not to engage with them.
  6. The resident told the landlord it had overlooked these concerns in an email on 6 October 2023. She said she had raised them with the landlord several times during the parties’ correspondence. The evidence supports this assertion. It is reasonable to conclude that repeating herself was avoidable and frustrating. There is no indication the landlord has addressed her concerns to date. This is also unfair. Based on the timing of this report, the evidence points to an avoidable delay of around 20 months. The overlooked issue is a more significant complaint handling failure by the landlord. The resident was impacted as she was unable to address her concerns during the interim period.
  7. In late 2023 the resident told the landlord it should not have closed her complaint. It is noted the landlord had no outstanding commitments to fulfil on the complaint at this point. It had previously referred her to the Ombudsman. Overall, there is no indication the landlord’s closure was unfair or that the resident was adversely impacted by it. We find there was no failure by the landlord in respect of this issue.
  8. In summary, while the landlord acted appropriately in some respects, there were also problems with its complaint handling. Its lack of proactivity in April 2023 contributed to an unreasonable delay of around 3 months. The resident was impacted as she did not have an opportunity to address her concerns through the landlord’s formal complaints process during the interim period. The landlord has not acknowledged its contribution to the delay or attempted to put things right. Significantly, it overlooked one of the resident’s key concerns at stage 2. Although she highlighted this to the landlord subsequently, there is no indication it has addressed the matter to date. This is unfair. The evidence shows she had previously raised it a number of times. This delay had a similar impact to the one in April 2023. Overall, we find there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  9. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation has followed the same approach that we described in the previous section of this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s queries and concerns around service charges.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant manager to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £250 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her queries and concerns around service charges.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. If it has not done so already, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to offer the resident the opportunity to pursue her concerns about its website through its formal complaints process. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. It can supply its relevant case reference number if it logs a new complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to update the resident about the actions it took in relation to the wording in its service charge letters. This is because it said it had raised her concerns about its use of the word “refund” internally. It also said it would consider changing its standard letter wording. For efficiency, it can include the update in its apology letter. In any case, the landlord must provide its update to the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  5. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share a brief summary of this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should provide a copy of its relevant internal communication to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.