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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202100623)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100623

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

28 March 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:
    1. The resident’s concerns over the level of some of the landlord’s service charges. Specifically, the resident has said she believes she is being overcharged for services.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about the service charges.
    3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a joint assured shorthold tenancy for the property since 18 April 2016. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow which is part of a scheme of 20 similar purpose built properties. The landlord is the owner of the property. The landlord has indicated it has recorded the resident as having age related vulnerabilities on its systems.
  2. The resident first raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her service charges on 2 December 2019. The resident emailed the landlord with queries concerning a number of charges in its service charge bill for the financial year 2018-2019. The landlord responded to the resident’s queries on 11 December 2019 with further emails back and forth discussing the charges until March 2020. The resident next contacted the landlord on 25 March 2021 querying the same issues but for the service charge bill 2019-2020. The landlord responded on the same day.
  3. On 2 July 2022 the resident and a group of neighbours submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. The complaint said that they were querying service charges for several years and had not received satisfactory answers. The complaint queried charges relating to seven different services, which were; gas and electricity, risk assessment for legionella, repairs to the emergency call system, future renewals, depreciation charges, window cleaning and scheme staffing costs. The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaints process on 29 July 2022. The response explained the charges and concluded each was reasonable.
  4. On 15 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to request the complaint was escalated to stage two of its complaints process. It outlined that the residents did not accept the landlord’s letter of response and included further concerns about the charges and a request to see information relating to these. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 14 September 2022. The response supported the information provided in the landlord’s stage one response and the complaint was not upheld.
  5. In bringing her complaint to this service the resident has said:
    1. The landlord has overcharged for services.
    2. The landlord is not engaging with the residents, will not arrange a meeting and has not provided evidence to support the service charges as requested.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint cannot be investigated.
  2. In making her complaint to this Service the resident has said that the landlord has overcharged her for services provided. This Service has considered whether this falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the level of service charge for the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion … “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of rent or service charge increase.”
  3. This applies to each of the service charges the resident has said she believes she was overcharged for including the gas and electric, legionella testing, repairs to the emergency call system, future renewals, depreciation charges, window cleaning and scheme staffing costs.
  4. We recognise this will come as a disappointment to the resident however she may be able to apply to the First Tier Tribunal, which has the expertise and authority to consider the reasonableness of the service charges or seek independent legal advice about challenging the charges applied.

Policies and procedures

  1. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 22 states, “(2) The tenant, or secretary with the consent of the tenant, may within six months of obtaining the summary require the landlord in writing to afford him reasonable facilities – (a) for inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary.”
  2. The landlord’s information sheet titled “Service Charges – Summary of tenants’ rights and obligations”, which is sent out with the service charge end of year statement states “You have the right, within 6 months of receiving a written summary of costs, to require the landlord to provide you with reasonable facilities to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary and for taking copies or extracts from them. “

The resident’s concerns and requests for information

  1. On 2 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord with a number of queries concerning her service charge bill for the financial year 2018-2019. The resident queried the cost of a number of charges and the quality of the services provided for the cost. The landlord responded to the resident, in part, on 11 December 2019. The landlord’s response was appropriate in that it attempted to answer the resident’s concerns.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 December 2019 with further queries about the charges and requesting a meeting to discuss the charges with the landlord. The landlord responded on 9 January 2020, providing further information about the charges. However it did not respond to the resident’s request for a meeting which was unreasonable.
  3. Following a meeting with other residents of the scheme, the resident contacted the landlord again on 5 February 2020 with further queries and reiterating their request that the landlord meets with the residents. The landlord responded on the same day providing further information to the resident but again failed to respond to the resident’s request for a meeting. This was unreasonable and resulted in time and trouble for the resident in having to make this request again.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 March 2020. She explained that the residents were still confused about how the charges had been worked out and again requested a meeting with the landlord. The landlord responded on 10 March 2020 confirming it was unable to undertake a meeting due to covid but would be happy to answer email queries or discuss the charges with the resident on the phone. Whilst this was an appropriate response given the circumstances the landlord should have taken this opportunity to remind the resident of their right to review invoices and receipts associated with the charges.
  5. The resident next contacted the landlord about service charges on 25 March 2021. The resident said it had been a year since she initially raised her concerns but nothing had been done about it. The resident questioned the cost of the service charges in a number of areas, including the gas and electric, window cleaning, future renewals and scheme staffing costs. The landlord responded on the same day answering the residents queries. However, the landlord did not explain to the resident her right to review receipts or that she could challenge the charges with the First Tier Tribunal. This was unreasonable and resulted in detriment to the resident.
  6. On 2 July 2022 a group of resident’s, including the complainant, contacted the landlord to make a complaint about its handling of their service charges. The residents said they wished to query the service charges for the last several years and raised queries about charges for gas and electric for the community building, risk assessment for legionella, repairs to the emergency call system, future renewals, depreciation charges, window cleaning and scheme staffing costs. The residents again requested a representative from the landlord met with them to discuss the charges. The resident also requested to see all bills related to the charges queried to substantiate these.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 29 July 2022. It concluded that all the charges levied were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s costs. It offered to arrange a meeting with the residents and ensure representatives from the relevant departments were available to answer questions. It also said that it had supplied documentary evidence of the charges, where possible, however, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not provide the residents with sufficient information in relation to their request.
  8. The landlord has provided a screen shot of 1 gas invoice for 4 May 2022 – 1 June 2022 and 1 electric invoice for 12 May 2022 – 13 June 2022. It has also provided the outcome of an outlet monitoring legionella test undertaken on 18 July 2022. It is clear from the group’s complaint that they were looking to exercise their right under the Landlord and Tenant act 1985 to review “accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary”. That this information was not provided to the residents was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policies.
  9. On 15 August 2022 the residents requested the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The residents reiterated their request to see all bills relating to gas and electricity charges. The residents also reiterated their request for a meeting with the landlord to discuss the charges. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 14 September 2022. It concluded that all queried charges were reasonable in line with its stage 1 response. It did not respond to the resident’s request for a meeting and did not provide any further accounts or receipts supporting the service charges. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policies.
  10. As part of its final response the landlord has said it is unable to provide copies of bills related to repairs to its emergency call system as these contain commercially sensitive information. However, the residents have a right, as outlined in the landlord’s own literature, to inspect invoices / receipts that they have contributed to. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take the necessary steps to redact any commercially sensitive information and provided the bills for the resident’s to review. That it did not was inappropriate.
  11. As part of her complaint the resident has questioned the need for legionella testing that the landlord undertakes. In its stage 1 response the landlord has said that it has a legal obligation to undertake water sampling and temperature checks on the monthly basis. Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 makes provision for relevant health and safety legislation to apply to landlords to ensure a duty of care is shown to their tenants’ with regard to their health and safety. Given this the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord is acting in line with its risk assessment and duties in undertaking temperature and legionella checks.
  12. As part of her complaint the resident has also questioned the frequency with which the windows are being cleaned. In the landlords stage 1 response it has confirmed that its records show that for the financial year 2021/2022 twelve visits were made in-line with monthly cleaning.
  13. However, it has also said, in its email dated 25 March 2021 that during 2020/2021 some services were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic (covid). It confirmed that any services undelivered would have a credit applied to the service charge account. This was a reasonable response given the situation and in line with the landlord’s service charge policy which states “any surplus or deficit will then be included in the following year’s service charge budget.” However, it is unclear from the evidence provided if any refunds were made due to service not being delivered because of covid. As such an order has been made for the landlord to provide this evidence to the resident.
  14. The resident has also questioned the morality of the landlord collecting for future renewals given the age of resident’s at the scheme. In its stage 1 response the landlord has outlined that the future renewal charge is collected in anticipation of future large scale expenditures. It said the charges are reviewed annually to ensure enough provision to fund all works in future years currently on a 15 year cycle. It has said it took the decision to collect the charge to reduce the burden of having to pay for large expenditures in one go. It also said the charged had increased as it intends to replace the warden call system in 2024/2025.
  15. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on the morality of the service charge but rather confirm the landlord has the right to charge it under the tenancy. Having reviewed the resident’s tenancy it is noted that the future renewal of scheme equipment is included as a service charge in appendix 1. As such it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to find failure with the landlord for collecting this charge.
  16. In summary the landlord has failed to provide the requested information which the resident has a right to inspect. The residents had repeatedly requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss the accounts. This was either ignored or where a meeting was offered at stage 1 not follow up. While the landlord has been responsive to the resident’s queries its failure to provide evidence of bills and accounts supporting its service charge statements amounts to maladministration and a series of orders are set out below.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident submitted their stage 1 complaint to the landlord through the post in a letter dated 2 July 2022. This appears to have been received by the landlord on 4 July 2022, however, has been date stamped as received on 4 June 2022 in error. The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines that “when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt”. However the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 15 July 2022. This was 4 days outside of this timescale and resulted in the response to the resident being delayed.
  2. The resident requested their complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 15 August 2022. However, this was outside of offices hours so it is unlikely it was received by the landlord until 16 August 2022. The landlord provided its final response on 14 September 2022. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states responses at stage 2 will be provided within 20 working days. 
  3. While the landlord’s complaints handling has generally been in line with its complaints policy it has not acknowledged the delay in responding at stage 1 of its complaints process in either its stage 1 or stage 2 response. As such, this amounts to service failure and an order is set out below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns over the level of some of the landlord’s service charges are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information. 
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following actions within the next 6 weeks and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
    1. Write to the resident an apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation, comprised of: 
      1. £200 for her time and trouble in pursuing the landlord for a response to her requests for documentary evidence.
      2. £50 for her time and trouble caused by the landlords complaint handling failure
    3. Arrange a meeting with the resident as offered at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord should ensure that at this meeting the resident is provided with an opportunity to review and take copies, if required, of all accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary of service charges for 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. Where this information is no longer available the landlord should set this out in writing to the resident.
    4. The landlord should write to the resident setting out which services it was unable to deliver during covid and confirm when credits for the services were applied to the resident’s service charge account.
    5. The landlord should review the failings identified in this report and set out how they will prevent similar failings happening in the future.