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

Settle Group (202314481)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314481 and 202501499

Settle Group

14 April 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 handling of:
    1. Grounds maintenance services and window cleaning costs.
    2. Queries about communal gas charges and communal cleaning charges for the resident’s building.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a designated retirement living scheme.
  2. On 23 March 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She stated she was unhappy with the increase in ground maintenance costs and quality of the grounds maintenance works. The resident also explained that the windows were only cleaned twice last year, so she did not believe the costs were justified. She also queried the cost of the housing management charge.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 2 May 2023. It explained it had reviewed the current service charges, and the charges were in line with the price increases for all goods and services offered. The landlord explained the grass cutting contract allowed for up to 12 cuts per year. It stated during dry spells, such as last summer, the number of cuts were reduced, but this was balanced by increased cuts both earlier and later in the year. The landlord explained it had arranged for its estates service manager to carry out an inspection of the grounds to assess the condition of the communal areas. It also confirmed that the windows were cleaned twice each year, and the price increased from £20 to £21.15 per resident. The landlord also explained it was aware the £9 housing management charge was incorrectly charged annually rather than weekly last year. It confirmed that this had now been resolved.
  4. On 4 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated the ground maintenance work was very poor and the increase in the grounds maintenance cost was high. The resident also stated previously the windows were cleaned every 3 months and now it was only twice a year, but the charge had increased.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 August 2023. It explained it inspected the communal areas with a focus on the maintenance of the green spaces and window cleaning. The landlord stated following the inspection, it had agreed to complete maintenance works and manage the plants and trees. It also explained it would remind its contractors of their window cleaning requirements. The landlord also stated it had begun discussions with the local authority to look at options to coordinate its management of the communal areas as discussed during its site visit. It offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the time and trouble experienced.
  6. On 5 December 2023, the resident submitted an additional complaint to the landlord. She stated she was unhappy with the significant increase in the communal gas charge included in the service charges for the financial year of 2022/2023. The resident stated there was no communal gas in her building and there was only gas in one of the other buildings on the estate. She also explained she would like to know why she paid a charge for cleaner’s wages and a charge for communal cleaning.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 January 2024. It explained some other residents had also previously raised concerns over the service charge costs for the communal gas. It stated in response to the concerns raised; it changed energy providers to try to minimise costs to its residents. However, it stated due to the significant rise in electricity costs around the UK, an increase in costs could not have been avoided. The landlord also stated, in response to the resident’s queries about the cleaning charges, it could see there had been a communal cleaning charge of £30.73 in addition to the £206.20 for cleaning wages. This charge was for biannual bin cleaning. It offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay in responding to her service charge queries and an additional £100 for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.

 

  1. On 21 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated nothing had been resolved, and she had not received contact from the landlord about the outstanding grounds maintenance works. She also stated some of the service charges could be clearer.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 April 2024. It explained the service charges were calculated for the resident’s building and surrounding buildings as she was classed as part of the scheme and had always had access to the services available since she moved into the property, and this always formed part of her annual service charge. The landlord also explained it had asked its repairs services manager to arrange for an inspection of the electricity arrangements to identify any wastage and take remedial actions. In addition, the landlord also stated it had asked its estate service manager to visit the resident’s property and carry out an inspection of the external grounds and communal areas. It acknowledged that there was a delay in its estate service manager contacting her and offered £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord also confirmed going forward it would ensure that scheduled maintenance services were monitored on an ongoing basis.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the service charges and services to be fair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. This report will consider whether the landlord sufficiently responded to the resident’s service charge queries in line with its legal obligations. Disputes about the level of rent or service charge or level of increase are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). This is in line with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website). Therefore, the Ombudsman will not respond to the resident’s concerns about the level of service charge, including whether the service charge was too high.

Policies, Procedures, and legislation

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy states service charges are defined as the amount payable by the tenant or leaseholder of a property, as part of or in addition to the rent, which is payable directly or indirectly for service, repairs, maintenance and improvement, buildings insurance and the cost of management.
  2. The service charge policy also explains the landlord’s leasehold and service charge team log and respond to service charge queries. The landlord aims to respond to queries within 10 working days.
  3. Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also sets out the statutory timescales when landlords are expected to respond to service charge enquiries. A landlord is expected to respond within one month of the request or 6 months of the end of the period to which the query relates, whichever is later.

Grounds maintenance services and window cleaning costs.

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by reviewing the service charge costs in response to the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance services and window cleaning, the landlord explained that the grounds maintenance contract included the following:
    1. Hedge cutting carried out up to 3 times per year.
    2. Shrub beds maintenance carried out up to 10 times a year.
    3. Spraying of weeds on hard surfaces carried out 2 times per year.
    4. Grass cutting carried out up to 12 times per year.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide an explanation of the services included in the grounds maintenance contract, so the resident was aware of what her service charge cost was for and how regularly grounds maintenance work was required to be completed.
  3. The landlord also took appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance works, including the grass cutting. It explained during last year, it reduced the number of grass cuts during dry spells in the summer. However, the grass cuts were balanced out by increased cuts both earlier and later in the year. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a list of its attendance for the grounds maintenance works which showed a regular attendance. The landlord also agreed to arrange an inspection of the grounds on the estate to assess the condition, which was reasonable.
  4. The inspection of the grounds took place on 27 July 2023 and following the inspection, the landlord agreed to complete maintenance works such as lighting repairs. It also confirmed it would re–attend and complete works to manage the plants, including cutting back the willow tree, removing dead plants, and managing the shrubs. Shortly after, the landlord completed the agreed works. The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out an inspection and completing the identified works to resolve any issues with the communal grounds. It also confirmed it was in discussions with the local authority to coordinate the management of the communal area going forward.
  5. The landlord also took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the window cleaning costs and services. It explained the windows were cleaned twice a year, and the window cleaning cost had increased from £1.15 from £20 to £21.15. The landlord also inspected the standard of window cleaning on 27 July 2023 and, following the inspection, it confirmed it had reminded its contractors of their window cleaning requirements. It also confirmed it would monitor the quality of the window cleaning moving forward.
  6. The landlord monitored the quality of the window cleaning services as agreed, and it identified that the window cleaning service was not acceptable during the financial year of 2022 to 2023 and then refunded the service charge costs for this period. In addition, in March 2024, the landlord ended the contract with the window cleaning contractor and confirmed it would source a new contractor. The landlord’s explanation about the window cleaning frequency and costs was reasonable. It was also positive that the landlord had agreed to monitor the quality of the window cleaning work going forward and refunded the service charge costs when the quality of the work was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord also acknowledged that it had incorrectly charged the housing management fee of £9 annually instead of weekly last year. However, it explained it had now resolved this and explained what the housing management fee covered. The landlord acted appropriately by recognising the error and resolving it.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s response about the grounds maintenance services and window cleaning was reasonable, and the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced due to the concerns raised. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put this right. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified concerns, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance services and window cleaning.

 

 

Queries about communal gas charges and communal cleaning charges.

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps by responding to the resident’s concerns about the communal gas and cleaning charges. It acknowledged there had been an increase in the communal gas charges and explained this was due to the significant rise in gas and electricity across the UK. The landlord confirmed it had also changed energy providers to try to minimise costs for residents. It also provided the resident with a breakdown of the specific costs resulting in the increase and a copy of its energy bills. The landlord also stated it would arrange for its repairs manager to carry out an inspection of the electricity arrangements to identify any wastage and take any required remedial actions. The landlord’s explanation about the communal gas charges was reasonable, and it acted appropriately by attempting to reduce the costs by changing energy provider.
  2. The resident also raised concerns she was not directly benefiting from the communal heating, so did not believe she should have to contribute to the communal gas charges. The landlord explained the service charges were calculated for the resident’s building and surrounding buildings as they are part of the scheme, and all residents have access to the services available. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and it was allowed to calculate the service charge in this way.
  3. The landlord also acted appropriately by explaining the communal cleaning charge figures and bin cleaning service. It explained for the financial year of 2022 to 2023; the service charge summary included a communal cleaning charge of £30.73 in addition to a charge of £206.20 for cleaning wages. The landlord confirmed the £206.20 charge was for the biannual bin cleaning. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and it took the appropriate steps by explaining what the cleaning costs were for.
  4. In response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of bin cleaning, the landlord attended the living scheme on 27 March 2024 and inspected the condition of the bins. The landlord explained the inspection identified that the bins were in good condition and relevant stickers were on the bins. It also explained that the bin collection days can change around public holidays. The landlord has provided us with a copy of the bin cleaning attendance sheet, which shows the number of bins cleaned and the date they were cleaned. In addition, the landlord explained if there were issues identified with the bin services not being delivered, then it would adjust the service charges accordingly. The landlord took the appropriate steps by inspecting the conditions of the bins, and its response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there was a delay responding to the resident’s service charge queries and a delay in carrying out an inspection of the communal areas. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
  2. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. In this case, there may be no permanent impact on the resident, as the resident received a reasonable response to her service charge queries. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the distress and inconvenience caused, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding the resident’s concerns about the communal gas and cleaning charges.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 23 March 2023 about the grounds maintenance and window services and the associated costs. The landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response on 2 May 2023. It took the landlord around 25 working days to respond. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the Code or the landlord’s own complaints policy.
  3. Following this, on 4 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 August 2023. This response was approximately 42 working days late. The delay was unreasonable, and the landlord did not acknowledge or offer the resident compensation for its complaint handling delays in relation to the resident’s initial complaint. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. The amount of compensation complies with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as set out above.
  4. On 5 December 2023, the resident submitted an additional complaint to the landlord about communal gas charges and communal cleaning charges. The landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2024, which was around 17 working days late. The landlord’s response was late and outside the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  5. The resident sent an escalation request to the landlord on 21 February 2024 and, following this, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 April 2024. The response was around 12 working days late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint about communal gas charges and communal cleaning charges. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delay. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above and was sufficient to recognise the complaint handling errors associated with the resident’s second complaint.
  6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its complaint handling error with the resident’s second complaint. However, it failed to acknowledge and provide compensation for the complaint handling delays associated with the resident’s first complaint. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. As referenced above, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors in relation to the resident’s first complaint. The compensation ordered is in addition to the £100 compensation the landlord offered for the delays associated with the resident’s second complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Grounds maintenance services and window cleaning costs.
    2. Communal gas charges and communal cleaning charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

 

 

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £50 compensation made during its complaint process in August 2023 and the £250 offered during its complaints process in January and April 2024. if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the complaints about service charges is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.