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

Aster Group Limited (202300109)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300109

Aster Group Limited

23 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charge for the maintenance and repair of adaptations.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom bungalow, and her tenancy started in June 2003. The resident is considered to be vulnerable due to having a disability that affects her mobility, and is a wheelchair user. Throughout the resident’s complaint, both the resident and a representative were in contact with the landlord, and this Service. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident, and her representative, as “the resident”.
  2. In 2016, as part of a disability facilities grant (DFG) application, the landlord installed automatic door openers in the resident’s property. On 15 August 2016, the resident provided signed authorisation for the landlord to levy a service charge “toward the maintenance” of the equipment.
  3. On 8 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. She said that she was “totally unaware” that she would be charged for repairs to the door openers. She was unhappy that she was being charged for 8 repairs visits totalling over £1,600, and she could not afford to pay. She raised a concern that she was not appropriately consulted about the costs of works prior to them going ahead.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 15 July 2022, it had reduced the cost of the “2 largest jobs” to below £250 as they were “over the threshold for consultation”. It had removed the charges for repairs to the windows as they were considered to be part of the structure of the building, and the landlord’s responsibility to repair. It had found no evidence that it had said the resident would not be charged for repairs to the adaptations. It encouraged the resident to speak to the relevant team about “financial hardship” to discuss an affordable payment plan.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 18 July 2022. She said its response did not address the “lack of clarity” about the charges, and it had not provided a breakdown of costs. She asked for clarification on why the windows were considered to be part of the structure of the building, but not the doors.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 10 August 2022, and upheld the resident’s complaint. It restated its position that the resident was liable to pay for the repairs to the adaptations. It apologised that it had not explained more clearly what repairs she would be charged for. It outlined its position on why she was charged for door repairs, but not windows. It provided a breakdown of the repairs costs it had charged the resident, and explained was due to visit her to discuss the affordability of the charges. It offered the resident £125 in compensation in acknowledgement of its “service failings”. It advised the resident she could refer her complaint to this Service, and have its ‘tenant panel’ consider its handling of the complaint.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The resident asked the landlord to consider her complaint at its tenant panel, which took place in October 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of the panel meeting on 2 February 2023. It said the panel found no service failure in its handling of the matter, but had made some recommendations. It recommended the landlord to absorb or cap the costs of repairs to the adaptations. It said it would need to conduct an affordability assessment before agreeing to such a measure. It also provided a detailed breakdown of the estimated upcoming charges, as was recommended by the panel.
  2. The landlord’s financial wellbeing officer met with the resident around 19 April 2023 (the exact date the meeting took place is unclear). The officer who conducted the meeting reported the resident should report the service charges to social services and they may reduce her care bill due to the “necessary” costs of the service charges for adaptations.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 26 April 2024, and confirmed she wanted us to investigate her complaint. The resident said she wanted to “challenge the arrears” that had accrued due to being charged for the repairs, and she wanted the services charges for the door adaptations to be “removed”.
  4. The landlord informed the Ombudsman following a meeting with the resident and its financial wellbeing officer in February 2023, it led to a claim for household support being made. The landlord stated the resident confirmed a request was made to the local authority in April 2023, and having not received a response following this, the landlord’s financial wellbeing officer made contact with adult social care on her behalf in June 2023.
  5. The landlord informed the Ombudsman confirmation was received from adult social care a new assessment had taken place and the resident’s care costs had been reduced that concluded the resident being able to pay the service change however the resident was not in position to settle the service charge arrears which was written off and cleared from the resident’s account by the landlord. Following this, in November 2023, it requested a review of the resident’s benefits entitlement, which in April 2024 the local authority agreed payment would be made and backdated to July 2023. It should be noted the Ombudsman has not seen documentary evidence to support the above.

Assessment and findings

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. It is understood that the resident’s complaint concerns the fact she was charged a service charge for repairs to the adaptations, and the landlord’s response to the queries she raised about it. We should make it clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable, or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated. This is in line with our Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. 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).
  3. The resident comments, from April 2024, asking the service charges to be waived/removed are noted. However, it is not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on such matters. We have instead considered the landlord’s communication around the service charges and whether its administration was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to challenge the level, and/or reasonableness, of the service charges levied against the adaptations.
  4. As part of our investigation, we have seen evidence that the resident claimed the landlord’s handling of the charges for repairs to adaptations amounted to disability discrimination (an email from her occupation therapist (OT) dated 26 April 2023). While the serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, whether the landlord committed disability discrimination is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. She may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
  5. It is worth noting that we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. What we have not done, is make a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to disability discrimination as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 August 2022. This Service has received correspondence between the landlord and the resident about the complaint. The evidence shows that some of the substantive issues remained outstanding beyond its final complaint response. The landlord offered to consider the resident’s case at its tenant panel as part of its complaints process. We have therefore included the panel, and the associated events, as within the scope of this investigation. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
  7. When the landlord installed the new door closers, in 2016, it asked the resident to sign a letter agreeing to a service charge that paid “toward the maintenance” of the equipment. The letter lacked clarity about whether individual repairs would be charged to the resident. The lack of clarity in the letter can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the resident’s confusion about whether she was liable for the repairs. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. Greater clarity at the outset would have helped managed the resident’s expectations about when she would incur further charges.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of July 2022, appeared to accept a failing that it had not consulted the resident about works above the cost of £250, and had therefore reduced the charge for said works. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint in order for the landlord to address the issue. While appropriate to reduce the charge, that it did not apologise for this failing, or show learning about how it would prevent a similar oversight in the future was inappropriate. Considering the resident had raised a concern about its lack of consultation about works, showing learning would have helped rebuild trust.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also admitted a failing that the resident was incorrectly charged for repairs to the windows. Again, that it offered no apology or learning for incorrectly charging her for those works was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise her complaint for it to adjust the charge. That it offered no apology or redress for the inconvenience was inappropriate.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out its position on why the resident was being charged for repairs to the adaptations. It is noted the resident was unhappy with its position. However, it is not within the remit of this Service to determine whether the landlord’s position was correct, as set out above. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its response, explained that it could not corroborate her claim that she was told she would not be charged for any repairs. While the resident was evidently disappointed with its position on the matter, its response was clear and reasonable in the circumstances.
  11. That the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response encouraged the resident to speak to the relevant team about the affordability of her service charges was appropriate in the circumstances. Its response was supportive of the individual circumstances of the resident, and it appropriately signposted her to the relevant team who could offer her support.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of August 2022, set out its position on charging for the repairs, and provided an appropriate level of detail. It also accepted a failing that it should have been clearer about communicating its position earlier. It also set out that it would remind its lettings team about providing more clarity about rechargeable repairs, which showed appropriate learning. The level of detail, transparency, and learning went some way to putting right its earlier failings.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also provided clarity on why it considered the windows to be part of the structure, but not the doors. It explained as the doors had the openers fitted retrospectively, they were not considered part of the door. It is not within the remit of this investigation to make a determination on whether this position was correct from a legal perspective, but to assess the landlord’s communication about its position. The landlord communicated its position with clarity, and was consistent in its position.
  14. When the resident raised further concerns, it sought to provide more detail in its explanation, which was appropriate in the circumstances. If the resident is unhappy with its position on its right to recharge for the repairs to the doors, she may wish to seek independent legal advice on how to pursue this matter.
  15. The evidence indicates that the landlord had not provided a breakdown of the costs prior to its stage 2 complaint response. That the stage 2 complaint response did so was appropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint in order to receive the information. That the landlord failed to acknowledge this detriment in its complaint response was inappropriate.
  16. Following the tenant panel, the landlord’s letter of February 2023 set out its position again each recommendation the panel had made. While appropriate to do so, that the landlord did so 4 months after the panel happened was an unreasonable delay. This caused the resident a further inconvenience.
  17. The resident was evidently distressed that she would continue to be charged for repairs, and expressed a concern that if the adaptations needed more and more repairs, due to their age, it would become unaffordable for her. The landlord sent the resident an email on 28 February 2023 in which it sought to reassure her that it would not leave the property unsafe for her to inhabit. It explained it would “reassess” the situation if the resident could no longer afford the repairs. This is evidence the landlord took a supportive approach. While setting out its position that it still planned to charge for repairs, it sought to reassure the resident it would not leave the property unsafe. That it outlined it was due to meet with her to discuss her finances shows it considered her circumstances, and vulnerability and was seeking to support the resident.
  18. It is noted that the email from resident’s OT from April 2023, cited the doors did not meet the “new safety standards” for wheelchair users. The OT recommended replacing the doors via a new DFG which would include a 5 year warranty. This concern is noted. However, as the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint as a formal response, it is not within the scope of this investigation.
  19. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord outlined its position on waiving, or setting a cap, on charging for repairs to the adaptations after the resident met with its financial wellbeing officer. Following the tenant panel, the landlord’s letter of February 2023 set out that it was not yet able to provide its position on whether it would waive or cap the charges, as it had not yet done an affordability assessment. The landlord confirmed with the Ombudsman service charge arrears of £198.01 were written off as the resident was not able to pay in August 2023. This was following adult social care’s financial assessment to reduce the resident’s care costs which put her in a position where she could pay the service charge. Although the landlord claims it maintained correspondence with the resident following this in aiding the resident’s claim with the local authority, it has not provided any documentary evidence to support this claim, however there is no evidence to suggest this was not the case, and as such a failing has not been identified in this instance.
  20. While we welcome the landlord’s offer of compensation to try and put right its admitted failings, the offer of £125 in compensation did not fully put things right. The landlord did show learning about its admitted failings, which was appropriate. But, it failed to acknowledge the inconvenience the resident experienced of waiting to receive a breakdown of costs.
  21. The landlord also failed to offer appropriate redress for its admitted failing of not consulting for works that cost above £250. It is however noted it reduced the costs of said works in recognition of this. There was an unreasonable delay in providing the resident with the outcome of the tenant panel, which caused a further inconvenience. We have also seen no evidence it outlined its final position on waiving/capping the resident’s costs. Considering the above failings we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and made a series of appropriate orders below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charge for the maintenance and repair of adaptations.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its administration of the resident’s service charge for the maintenance and repair of adaptations. Its offer of £125 in compensation should be deducted from this total, if already paid.
    3. Write to the resident to outline its position on whether it will waive the repairs service charges to adaptations following the financial assessment.