Home Group Limited (202302337)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302337

Home Group Limited

31 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. concerns about its administration of the service charge accounts;
2. concerns about the standard of services received for which they were charged;
3. concerns about the communication and completion of its action plan, including usage of the guest room;
4. associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

This complaint was made to the landlord and the Ombudsman as a group complaint including 11 households who are leaseholders of the landlord within the same scheme. The initial complaint was raised by the lead resident on behalf of 13 leaseholders. The scheme includes 14 leasehold retirement properties, 33 rented properties, 2 guest rooms, and a communal lounge and gardens. The landlord is a housing association, and had 2 separate teams that managed the rented and leased parts of the scheme.
The residents made a previous related complaint to the landlord in February 2019. The complaint resulted in the landlord reviewing 3 years of accounts, and identifying errors within them. The complaint concluded in December 2019 with the landlord paying each leaseholder over £700 each.
In October 2020 the residents sent detailed queries in response to the landlord’s end of year service charge accounts. They expressed their expectation that, “after a yearlong complaints procedure these accounts would now be administered in a more efficient manner, and the need for these queries should not arise”. The landlord accepted that there had been a communications breakdown with its maintenance team, and that it had been unaware of some of the points that the residents had raised. In February 2021 the landlord clarified the resident’s points, apologised for the identified errors, and stated its resolutions. It promised to do better in the coming year.
This process was repeated in August 2021 when the residents again sent detailed queries in response to the landlord’s end of year service charge accounts. The landlord again clarified the resident’s points, apologised for the identified errors, and stated its resolutions. It thanked the residents for the substantial time and effort they had put into reviewing the accounts, which it said was not expected.
During September 2021 the landlord wrote to the residents regarding its leasehold management team restructure, and stated its intention to communicate its service delivery improvements. It said that “We’ll start this via updates in monthly newsletters”. The landlord also acknowledged the delay in the national management fee review project, which it had first advised residents of in February 2020, and said that residents would be consulted once things had moved on.
In October 2021 the landlord approved a 14 point action plan for the scheme. The plan covered various communal property and grounds maintenance items, with most actions having target completion dates in 2022. The remaining actions had a target date of 1 December 2021, which included the reopening of the second guest room.

Complaint policy

The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.

Account for service charges procedure

The landlord was asked to provide its policies and procedures for leaseholder services, and service charge administration. It provided the above named procedure that detailed its financial processes. The only reference to the monitoring of services in the procedure concerned assessing the reasonability of the service provided. It stated that this may include using local knowledge, and physical inspections as necessary.

On 8 April 2022 the residents raised several concerns to the landlord regarding the reliability, and standards of its gardening contractor, which they compared unfavourably to the contractor that had ceased working at the scheme in September 2020. They highlighted the time taken to enter into a long term agreement with a new contractor, which had been ongoing since 2021. The landlord apologised to the residents for the delay in the Section 20 process to appoint a contractor, and said it would be writing to all leaseholders shortly. It said it would ask the scheme manager (SM) to address service standards directly with the current gardening contractor. Over the remainder of the month the landlord exchanged emails with the residents advising the status of its contractor procurement process.
On 4 May 2022 the landlord received a petition signed by around 27 leaseholders and tenants of the scheme, which stated that they did not want the current gardening contractor to be awarded the new long term contract. The accompanying letter raised several issues with the contractor’s work standards.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s petition. It noted that the letter did not state who had originally sent it, and so it was unable to send an acknowledgement. It stated its intention to not award the contract to the contractor the residents had complained about, and to set up a meeting with leaseholders.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the leaseholders to advise that it had considered their negative feedback regarding its current gardening contractor, and entered an agreement with an alternative contractor.
On 30 October 2022 the residents made their complaint to the landlord, which named 13 leaseholders at the scheme as being co-complainants (relating to 11 leasehold properties in total). The list noted that of the remaining 3 leasehold properties at the scheme, 1 was unoccupied, 1 had declined to be included, and that the leaseholder of the final property was too unwell to be involved. The key points of the resident’s complaint were as follows:
1. They said that the landlord had advised in September 2021 that it would provide service improvement updates via a monthly newsletter. They stated that no newsletters or other updates had ever been received.
2. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the gardening contractor. They highlighted the amount of time its operatives spent sat in their vans, and its poor standard of work.
3. They referred to the 2019 complaint concerning mistakes in 3 consecutive years of accounts. They said that that there had continued to be mistakes in the accounts since that time, which would have resulted in leaseholders being overcharged had they not identified the errors themselves.
4. They said that in February 2020 the landlord had advised leaseholders of a national management fee review being undertaken. They said that the only further information that had been provided was via a brief update received in September 2021.
5. They referred to the landlord’s October 2021 maintenance action plan for the scheme. They said that 7 of the 14 actions had not been completed, despite being well beyond their target dates.
6. They said that the lease made provision for 2 guest rooms at the scheme but that they had complained since 2019 that only 1 was available, with the other used for storage.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the lead resident. The landlord said that it was unable to accept the complaint as being on behalf of the other named leaseholders without their signed consent. The landlord responded to each of the resident’s issues in turn, and stated whether it had upheld each element. Its key points were as follows:
1. It explained that it provided updates to all schemes via its monthly newsletter. It said that it had believed that the newsletter was distributed to the resident’s scheme, but now understood that it had not been. It said that it would provide a monthly newsletter from there on (upheld).
2. It said that the resident’s complaint about the current gardening contractor was the first it had received, and asked that they raise their concerns with the SM (not upheld).
3. It said that the resident’s concerns regarding the accounts would be answered in a separate communication, but apologised for how long the national management fee review was taking (upheld).
4. It stated that good progress had been made on the action plan, but accepted that timeframes had been missed, and updates not adequately communicated. It said an updated action plan would be sent to leaseholders each month with the newsletter (upheld).
5. It accepted that the resident’s lease specified 2 guest rooms. It stated that 1 guest room was being used to provide contractor toilet facilities. It said that it would review this, and feedback to leaseholders via the monthly newsletter (upheld).
6. It apologised that the resident felt that the management of the scheme was unsatisfactory. It stated that it would review the service levels of both the rented and leaseholder management structures, and provide an update in due course (upheld).
7. It advised how the residents could escalate the complaint if they remained dissatisfied.
On 19 December 2022 the lead resident provided the landlord with the consent signatures of the leaseholders named at stage 1. The residents asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2. Their key points were as follows:
1. They protested that the gardening contractor element of the complaint should have been upheld, and expressed continued dissatisfaction with the service it provided.
2. They highlighted their previous concerns about the omission of gritting services from the new gardening contract, and the landlord’s explanation that a separate service would be provided. They said that there had just been a period of frozen weather with no gritting service provided.
3. They said that the landlord had not responded to the element of the complaint concerning its accounting mistakes over the previous 2 years.
4. They stated that they had been complaining about the standard of cleaning services at the scheme since 2019, and that the situation had still not improved.
5. They said they had not received the promised action plan update for that month.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord told the residents that there was a 6 to 8 week delay in processing stage 2 complaints, but that it would get to it as soon as it was able to.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord’s internal email stated that it was only now at the point of logging the resident’s escalation request, due to its backlog. It noted that it was now a group complaint, and discussed how to coordinate its response.
At the beginning of March 2023, the residents chased the landlord regarding their stage 2 complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay, and said that the residents would receive a stage 2 acknowledgement shortly. The resident’s emails over the following days expressed their dissatisfaction with the delay, and other matters. Their key points were as follows:
1. They said that, despite being more expensive, the gardening contractor appointed in June 2022 provided a far worse service than its 2020 predecessor. They detailed numerous instances of poor work, and practices, which they said that the landlord’s SM had failed to address. They highlighted that there was still no gritting service being provided on the leasehold side of the scheme,
2. They asked that the landlord provide the audited accounts for 2021/22, which they pointed out should have been provided within 6 months of the end of the financial year.
3. They stated that the landlord had still not provided an update of the national management fee review, despite 4 years passing since it was first advised.
4. They said that monthly newsletters had only been received in December 2022, and January 2023, with no action plan update provided. They said that 6 of the 14 action plan items remained outstanding. They highlighted that this included the reopening of the second guest room.
5. They raised queries relating to the budget, and service charges for various cleaning and maintenance services, along with issues with the standard of scheme management. They queried the delays to painting the gates, and other external metal work.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s complaint. It stated the need to avoid overcomplicating its stage 2 response, “by adding on extra communications” received since it was escalated. It said that it would arrange a visit to the scheme to address the additional matters that had been raised by the residents.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the residents. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It said that the interim gardening contractor up until June 2022 had been in post longer than had been advised to residents due to the unrealistic deadline it had given itself to complete the Section 20 process. It said that it had upheld this element of the complaint.
2. It confirmed the gritting contractor had been appointed, and that it had passed the resident’s concerns about the gritting service to the SM.
3. It said that it had passed the resident’s comments regarding the standard of communal cleaning to its SM to review. It stated that this had been investigated as part of a separate stage 1 complaint (the records suggested in 2021 or earlier). It said that, in line with its policy, the residents would need to escalate that complaint to stage 2 if they remained dissatisfied.
4. It detailed the various issues raised by the residents following the 2019/20 accounts, and again following the 2020/21 accounts, and its responses on both occasions. This included the errors it had made, and how they had been resolved. It said that on the basis that it had previously addressed and apologised for those matters; it had not upheld that element of their complaint.
5. It stated that it had upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the guest room at stage 1. It said that it was working to clear, and refurbish the room to bring it back into use.
6. It said that it had upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the action plan at stage 1. It said that it would continue to provide monthly updates via the newsletter and action plan.
7. It said that it was aware of the resident’s concerns raised in addition to those raised at stage 1. It said that these would be addressed in full at a meeting to be held at the scheme, and followed up in writing to all leaseholders.
8. It apologised for the inconvenience the residents had experienced. It further apologised for its complaint handling delays for which it said it was reviewing processes, and recruiting additional staff. It offered the residents £35 compensation each in recognition of that stage 2 delay.
9. It referred the residents to this Service if they remained dissatisfied.
On 2 April 2023 the residents expressed their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 response, and compensation offer. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. They said that although the landlord had upheld the gardening contract part of their complaint, it had done nothing about the continued poor service, or the lack of gritting.
2. They said that the previous apologies for accounts errors were not enough, and highlighted that it was the leaseholders themselves who had identified the mistakes. They said that already that year they had needed to complain that the audited accounts were late.
3. They stated that the landlord had not addressed the delay to the national management fee review, despite it having been ongoing for 4 years.
4. They said that the separate communal cleaning complaint that the landlord had referred to was from several years ago, and instigated by its own staff. They said that they had not escalated it as the landlord had promised the service would improve, but it had not.
5. They listed several maintenance items from the landlord’s action plan that were overdue. They said that no action plan update had been provided since the landlord’s stage 1 response in November 2022, and complained about the landlord’s poor communications.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the leaseholders with regards to its intention to enter into a long term agreement with a gardening contractor, ahead of the end of the current contract in October 2023. It invited their observations as part of its Section 20 consultation.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s reply to its stage 2 response. It referred the residents to that response, advised that their complaint was now closed, and referred them again to this Service.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

In May 2023 the landlord sent a leaseholder newsletter to the scheme, which introduced its new SM. The landlord’s action plan was attached to the newsletter, which asked that the new SM be given time to consider how to complete it. It said that the action plan would be updated following its meeting with leaseholders on 10 May 2023.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord updated its action plan for the scheme, which it provided to the leaseholders, and this Service. The plan stated that 6 actions remained outstanding, and provided details of the status of each. The guest room action stated that the room had been cleared, a new bed ordered, and that it would be usable again from the week beginning 13 November 2023.
On 14 November 2023 the residents told this Service that little had changed since the landlord’s stage 2 response. Their key points were as follows:
1. They said that the gardening contractor’s work was still substandard, which the landlord had done nothing to resolve. They described the standard of communal cleaning similarly.
2. They said that the landlord had provided no further information regarding the national management fee review, and that the leaseholders had only recently received their first action plan update. They said that all the same outstanding actions on the plan remained, including the guest room.
3. They stated that despite the landlord’s assurance that a newsletter would be provided monthly, only 1 had been received (in May 2023) since their complaint concluded.
On 3 April 2024 the residents told this Service that they had still not received any further newsletters, and that the only advice they had received regarding the national management fee review was that it was still in progress. They said that the standard of services provided by the landlord was still poor. They stated that the only outstanding action plan item that had progressed at all was the guest room. They said that the guest room had been cleared, but that it remained out of use as the landlord had not repaired its broken heating.

Assessment and findings

Administration of the service charge accounts

The residents related 2019 complaint to the landlord does not form part of this investigation. Nevertheless, it is not disputed that they had expressed their previous concerns about the landlord’s service charge administration, which resulted in errors being found in prior accounts, and leaseholders being compensated.
As such, it was understandable that the residents expressed their disappointment to the landlord that following their 2019 complaint, they again found it necessary to report accounting errors in October 2020. It would have been further frustrating for the residents that the same occurred the following year, when they again raised queries, and errors in the landlord’s accounts in August 2021.
On both occasions the landlord apologised for its errors, and resolved the issues raised, which did demonstrate a customer focused approach. However, the landlord did not provide any clear information as to how it intended to improve its administration of the accounts. As such, the landlord failed to demonstrate its learning, nor appropriately reassure the residents of how it would seek to prevent errors in the future.
The landlord acknowledged the substantial time and effort that the residents had put into reviewing the accounts. Had the landlord demonstrated its learning, it may have given the residents confidence that their rigorous reviews were no longer necessary. As such, the landlord’s failure to provide this reassurance would have added to the resident’s time, trouble, and frustration.
The residents made their complaint to the landlord on 30 October 2022, which included their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s administration of the service charge accounts. The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately considered below. However, the resident’s complaint gave it a further opportunity to demonstrate its learning, and offer appropriate reassurance, which it again failed to do.
During the resident’s complaint, it was unreasonable that they found it necessary to chase the landlord to provide the audited accounts for the previous financial year, which were several months overdue. This again provided no assurance to the residents that the landlord had effective account administration processes in place, and further added to their time and trouble.
At points during the above summary of events, the landlord attributed its account errors to communications issues with its maintenance team. This was also reflected in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the delays to its actions plan, further considered below. While the landlord did apologise to the residents for those internal communication failings, it again failed to demonstrate any learning, or how it would proactively prevent them going forward.
The landlord’s reactive approach to the resident’s concerns would have left them feeling that nothing had changed, as is evidenced by the resident’s more recent communications with this Service. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its administration of the service charge accounts, and made an order to this regard.

Standard of services

The residents had been raising their concerns to the landlord regarding the standard of communal gardening, cleaning, and other services for several years. On 8 April 2022 the residents raised specific concerns to the landlord regarding the standards, and work practices of its gardening contractor. As was repeatedly the case, the landlord apologised to the residents, and advised that it would ask its SM to address their concerns.
However, in each instance the Ombudsman has seen little evidence of any further action by the landlord or its SM, nor how it monitored the performance of its contractors. The landlord’s apparent lack of action would have added to the resident’s time, trouble, and frustration. It was understandable that the resident’s April 2023 response to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint letter expressed their continued dissatisfaction. Their response acknowledged that the landlord had upheld their complaint about the standard of gardening, but protested that, “nothing has been done about the continuing lack of service”. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of services.
Following the resident’s reported concerns on 8 April 2022, the landlord discussed its procurement process for the associated contract with them. The landlord also received a petition from a large number of mixed tenure residents at the scheme, which raised similar concerns regarding the current gardening contractor. The landlord’s resultant internal emails did demonstrate a customer focused approach in taking onboard the resident’s feedback towards its procurement process. However, as above, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took any further appropriate action to deal with the resident’s service standard concerns.
The new gardening contractor was appointed in June 2022, but the residents expressed their dissatisfaction with the standard of its work in their complaint made to the landlord in October 2022. The landlord’s complaint handling has been assessed below. However, it was unreasonable that its stage 1 response to the residents in November 2022 stated that this was the first complaint it had received about this contractor, and simply referred them to the SM. As above, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took any further appropriate action towards addressing the resident’s concerns.
The residents asked the landlord to escalate their complaint the following month. They expressed their continued dissatisfaction with the gardening and cleaning services, and highlighted the absence of gritting during the frozen weather. It is unreasonable that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took any action to address the resident’s concerns prior to them chasing its delayed complaint response almost 11 weeks later.
When the residents chased the landlord in early March 2023, they provided it with numerous examples of the gardening contractor’s poor practices, which they said that the SM had not addressed. They again expressed their dissatisfaction with the standard of communal cleaning, and that gritting was still not being undertaken on the leasehold side of the scheme. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s stage 2 response only considered procurement matters related to the previous gardening contractor, and failed to address the resident’s more recent concerns raised in their complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communal cleaning and gritting concerns, but once again only stated that they had been passed to the SM.
It is appropriate for landlords to refer resident’s concerns to its officer that is best placed to address them, in this instance the SM. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be able to evidence the actions taken by the officer, and the further measures it took if those actions proved unsuccessful. The residents had specifically told the landlord that the SM had not addressed their service standard concerns. It is unreasonable that even after being told this, the landlord was unable to demonstrate any further action beyond again referring the matter back to its SM.
As above, it was understandable that the residents continued to complain to the landlord about its lack of action towards their service standard concerns after their complaint had concluded, and more recently to this Service. The residents would have felt stuck in a vicious circle of repeatedly raising issues with the landlord that they had been unable to resolve via the SM, only to be referred back to the SM. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it appropriately handled the residents and leaseholder’s concerns about the standard of services, and a finding of maladministration has been made.

Action plan completion, communications, and guest room

In September 2021 the landlord advised the residents, and leaseholders of its intention to keep them informed of its work to improve service delivery via a monthly newsletter. The following month the landlord approved a 14 point communal area maintenance action plan, which mainly concerned external works, but also included the reopening of the second guest room by 1 December 2021.
The resident’s first direct reference seen by this Service to the landlord’s action plan, and the reopening of the second guest room, was their formal complaint made to the landlord on 30 October 2022. The residents and landlord’s emails seen by this Service referred at various points to the landlord’s meetings with leaseholders. As such, while the Ombudsman has not seen any minutes or other evidence of those meetings, it is reasonable to conclude that they occurred. All the actions on the landlord’s plan had target completion dates that predated the resident’s complaint, in several cases by many months. As such, it is also reasonable to conclude that the residents would have queried the delayed actions in their meetings with the landlord.
The resident’s first direct reference to the lack of monthly newsletters that has been seen by this Service, was also their 30 October 2022 complaint, 1 year after the landlord had said that the newsletters would be provided. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the residents suggested that the newsletters were being produced and that, up until their complaint, it had believed that they were being distributed at the resident’s scheme. As such, it is unclear whether the residents had previously raised the issue of the lack of newsletters with the landlord.
In either case it is not disputed that around half of the landlord’s action plan was incomplete, and overdue at the time of the resident’s complaint, including the second guest room. It is also not disputed that the landlord had failed to provide the leaseholders with either its promised monthly newsletter, or reasonable updates of its action plan.
While the landlord accepted these failings in its complaint responses, it did not offer the residents or leaseholders any redress. The landlord’s compensation offer to the leaseholders has been considered in the complaint handling assessment below. The landlord’s complaint response did commit to providing the leaseholders with an action plan update and monthly newsletter from that point onwards. However, its implementation of this was at best intermittent, with many months passing without a newsletter being provided, and even more without an action plan update. The landlord therefore acted unreasonably.
The residents did not state any specific issues that had been caused by the unavailability of the second guest room, and the landlord described the open guest room as ‘lightly used’. As such it is not clear to what extent the closure of the second guest room caused detriment to the residents. Nevertheless, the landlord did not dispute that it was obliged to have both rooms available for use. At the time that the resident’s complaint concluded, the reopening of the second guest room was 71 weeks beyond the target date stated in the landlord’s action plan, and a clear source of frustration to the residents. The landlord’s failure to complete its proposed work in a timely manner, nor keep the residents appropriately updated, would have added to that frustration, as well as their time and trouble.
Furthermore, following the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, the landlord again failed to demonstrate its learning. Its stage 2 complaint response to the residents in March 2023 upheld the guest room aspect of their complaint, and committed to clearing and reopening it. The landlord provided the leaseholders with a newsletter, and update in May 2023. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord provided any further newsletters or relevant updates, until it sent this Service and the residents its revised action plan in November 2023, at which time the guest room still was not open.
The landlord’s failure to complete the remainder of its action plan anywhere near in line with its target dates, nor keep the resident’s appropriately informed, was also a significant cause of frustration to them. The landlord’s November 2023 update of the action plan made several references to information being awaited from its maintenance team regarding the outstanding actions. This further suggested an internal disconnect, and communication issues between the landlord’s relevant teams.
It is acknowledged that works, and projects can be delayed by sometimes unforeseen circumstances. Nevertheless, when this is the case, it becomes even more important for landlords to keep residents informed, and manage expectations through regular and timely updates. In addition to the delays to its action plan, the landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations with regards to the national management fee review.
The resident’s complaint referred to the review, which they said was first advised to them by the landlord in February 2020. They complained that it was then 19 months before the landlord provided a relevant update, when it apologised for its lack of progress in September 2021. The landlord repeated its apology to the residents in its November 2022 stage 1 response, but gave little further explanation, and did not refer to it at all at stage 2.
This was a common theme throughout these assessments. Many times the landlord would readily acknowledge, and apologise to the residents for its service failing, but then fail to demonstrate any learning or actions aimed at a resolution or preventing a recurrence. The landlord was aware that the national management fee review was important to the residents. Its lack of information or timely updates would have again further added to their time, trouble, and frustration.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframe of its policy at stage 1 of its process, but there were significant delays in its handling at stage 2. The landlord also failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the residents for its complaint handling delays, and to offer compensation. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord’s offer failed to consider any other of its accepted service failures. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the impact of its failings on the residents, and a further finding of maladministration has been made.
The residents made their complaint on 30 October 2022, and the landlord issued them its stage 1 response on 9 November 2022. The landlord’s response upheld each part of the resident’s complaint, except for the gardening contractor element. The landlord’s response stated that it had not upheld the gardening element of the complaint on the basis it was the first it had received. Regardless of whether this was the first complaint made about its current garden contractor, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate, and attempt to resolve it. Instead, as above, the landlord simply directed the residents to raise the matter themselves with its SM. As such, the landlord failed to demonstrate its efforts to be fair, or to put things right.
While the landlord upheld the remainder of the complaint at stage 1, most of its proposed actions involved it further reviewing matters, and providing updates to the residents via its monthly newsletter. As above, the landlord subsequently failed to provide a newsletter to the residents in most months during the year following their complaint, nor otherwise provide them with timely updates. The landlord therefore acted unreasonably.
The residents requested that their complaint be escalated on 19 December 2022. The landlord did promptly advise the residents of its backlog, and that there would be a delay in it issuing its stage 2 response. Nevertheless, in such circumstances it would be expected that the landlord would at least seek to address any immediate service delivery issues, such as the lack of gritting, and keep the residents appropriately updated during the delay. It is therefore unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any such action by the landlord before the residents chased it 11 weeks later.
The residents chased the landlord for progress of their stage 2 complaint in early March 2023. They reiterated and updated some of the points raised in their complaint, as well as raising additional issues that the landlord considered in its internal emails. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at that time stated that if residents raised additional matters, “where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint”.
The residents original complaint was multifaceted, and the landlord’s stage 2 response was already severely delayed. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide that it would handle the additional issues raised by the residents separately, and hold a meeting with them to this regard. This would have allowed the landlord to get a clearer understanding of the residents additional issues, in particular as it was a group complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the residents on 22 March 2023. It advised the residents of its intention to hold a meeting about the additional issues that they had raised after stage 1, and promised to follow this up in writing to them. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this meeting was held, nor that the residents were ever advised that the additional issues they had raised would be handled as a new complaint. The landlord therefore failed to act in line with the Code.
As above, the landlord’s stage 2 response failed to appropriately address the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of service they were receiving from its contractors. The landlord’s position that it would refer these matters to the SM, after the residents had already said that the SM had been unable to resolve them, would have only added to their frustration. This was further compounded by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the cleaning service, and instead suggest that they escalate a related historical complaint. As above, and in line with the Code, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to either respond to the complaint, or handle it as a new one. It was unreasonable that the landlord did neither.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint regarding its account errors, on the basis that it had apologised and resolved them in the years in which they had been raised. This failed to address that the residents had raised further concerns about the landlord’s late provision of its end of year accounts. Furthermore, and as above, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcomes, or in any other way provide assurance to the residents that its account administration had improved. As such the landlord again failed to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord took 44 working days longer than the 20 working day timeframe stated in its process, and the Code, to issue the residents its stage 2 response. The landlord did demonstrate some learning from this delay, and how it intended to improve this. It offered each resident £35 compensation in recognition of the delay, and reiterated that it still upheld all the elements of the resident’s complaint that it had upheld at stage 1. However, while it upheld and apologised for these service failings, it failed to offer appropriate redress. The Ombudsman has therefore made a compensation order in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. concerns about its administration of the service charge accounts;
2. concerns about the standard of services received for which they were charged;
3. concerns about its communications, and completion of its action plan including usage of the guest room;
4. associated complaint.

Reasons

The residents had highlighted errors in the landlord’s service charge accounts for several consecutive years. While the landlord had resolved, and apologised for those errors, it did not provide the residents with clear information as to how it intended to improve its administration of the accounts. The resident’s complaint offered the landlord a further opportunity to demonstrate its learning, which it again failed to take.
The residents had raised multiple concerns with the standard of services provided by the landlord’s contractors, to which their service charges related. The landlord’s response on most occasions was to refer the matters to its SM, even after the residents had highlighted the SM’s inability to resolve them. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it appropriately monitored its contractor’s performance, nor took reasonable action in response to the resident’s concerns.
It was not disputed that around half of the landlord’s action plan was severely delayed, nor that it had failed to keep the residents appropriately updated. The landlord’s complaint response stated reasonable intentions for how it intended to address this, but offered no redress to the residents for its accepted failings. The landlord then compounded this by failing to follow through with its promised communication improvements, and actions.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident was significantly delayed, and was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord upheld, and apologised for many of its service failings. However, it offered little in the way of meaningful resolutions or redress for several of the resident’s points. It failed to follow through with most of the resolutions it did offer, and its complaint handling failures would have only further added to the resident’s time, trouble, and frustration.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the residents to apologise for the further identified failings in this report.
2. Pays each of the 11 group complaint households compensation of £450, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about its account administration.
  2. £100 for the time and frustration caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about its service standards.
  3. £150 for the time and frustration caused by the failures identified in its communications, and completion of its action plan.
  4. £100 for the time, trouble, and frustration caused by the failures in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
  5. An additional £150 for the time and trouble caused to the lead complainant in this complaint by the landlord’s failures.
3. Provides the residents, and this Service with its updated action plan to include its revised target completion dates for any outstanding actions.
4. Writes to the residents, and this Service with an update of the national management fee review, to include a target date for completion.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that within 8 weeks the landlord:
1. Independently, and/or in liaison with the lead complainant, identify whether there were further households (other than the 11 who brought the complaint to this Service and are included as group complainants here) affected by its handling of the issues and if so, to take appropriate steps to apologise and put things right for those additional households.
2. Reviews its newsletter and/or other leaseholder communication processes, and writes to the residents and this Service with its findings and intentions.
3. Reviews its service charge account administration processes relevant to the resident’s complaint, and writes to the residents and this Service with its findings and learning.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.