London Borough of Harrow (202317581)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317581

London Borough of Harrow

27 February 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. The resident’s service charge information and services dispute.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat in a residential housing block. The building is owned and managed by the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident bought the property’s lease and moved there in July 2014. The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. The resident raised a dispute with the landlord on 8 September 2021 about some elements of a service charge invoice. The landlord responded to his dispute on 3 April 2023, 18 months later.
4. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 3 May 2023. He said that it had taken the landlord one and a half years to respond to his service charge dispute. This was despite him chasing a response on 16 May 2022, which it had also ignored. He said that he continued to consider the service charges unpayable, as it had not justified the charges, and due to the time it had taken to respond. He also challenged its competence and care. He disputed its logic because it had said that any member of the public could ask it to complete works at the cost of those living on the estate. He also said that its service charge calculations were incorrect.
5. The landlord emailed a stage 1 response to the resident on 17 May 2023. It apologised for its late reply, and it also said:
   1. Its delay in responding to the resident’s queries was unacceptable and was due to staffing issues. It had since changed the team so that it could answer service charge queries quicker.
   2. The service charge it had demanded remained payable under the terms of the lease.
   3. The resident should report concerns about caretaking or grounds maintenance when the issues arise. It was difficult to determine if there had been a poor service once the service charge statement was sent. This was because it was for services it had provided during the previous year.
   4. It was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the communal parts of the block and estate. Anyone could report a repair, even if they did not live on, or own a property, in the block. When a matter is bought to its attention that requires it to act, its focus is on its maintenance responsibilities.
   5. It had placed a credit of £24.13 on the resident’s service charge account and the outstanding balance was £256.68.
6. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 5 June 2023. He said the landlord’s stage 1 response had not addressed the complaints he had raised. The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 29 June 2023, which said:
   1. It had credited a refund to the service charge for 2 named items the resident had disputed, and it apologised for a delay in crediting the refund.
   2. A damaged tree branch that it had arranged to be removed was a health and safety concern. The resident had to contribute towards the costs of this work because the works related to a tree outside his block.
   3. Grounds maintenance service charges were made up of services completed on communal green spaces. These services may involve grass cutting, bush pruning, flower planting, and weed maintenance, but not every estate had these works completed. The resident’s service charge was his share of the costs for the services it had provided. If his estate only required grass cutting this would have been reflected in the allocated cost for this.
   4. There was no further discount to be applied and so he should pay the £256.68 service charge, as it had outlined in its stage 1 response.
7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 14 August 2023. He said that the landlord had requested a service charge that it was unable to account for and it had ignored his emails. He explained that, to put the matter right, the landlord should write off a service charge to the value of £256.68 and provide him with a compensation payment of £250 for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. The resident’s complaint concerns information he was provided about service charges, and the landlord’s response to the queries he raised about the service charge amounts. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the level or the amount of increase of service charges and/or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints about the administration of service charges, the services charged for, and how the landlord communicated about service charges. This is in line with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, which says we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent, or the amount of the increase of service charges or rent.
9. 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). The resident could seek free, independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) in relation to how to proceed with a case.
10. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the level of the service charge, we have considered the landlord’s communication about the matters, as well as any general distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Service charge dispute

11. The landlord issued a service charge invoice to the resident in keeping with the lease terms on 18 August 2021. The fourth schedule of the resident’s lease explains that he must pay service charges to cover the costs, charges, and expenses the landlord has reasonably incurred for carrying out the works it is responsible for. The landlord’s website also explains that service charges cover maintenance and services for the communal areas of the property, which include matters such as caretaking and grounds maintenance. It was appropriate for the landlord to issue a service charge statement and invoice to the resident that explained the service charge costs it sought to collect in keeping with its obligations under the lease.
12. The landlord demanded a service charge payment for 2 items that it had previously said it was responsible for. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s statement confirming that it was responsible for these charges. However, the resident raised a dispute about these items with the landlord on 8 September 2021, in which he referred to the matter. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s reference to its previous statement. Instead, it wrote to the resident on 3 April 2023 to confirm that it had credited the disputed charge back to his service charge account.
13. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have demanded a service charge that it had previously said it was responsible for. This caused time and trouble to the resident in raising a dispute that could have been avoided. It was also likely to have affected the resident’s confidence in its service charge calculation procedures. The landlord’s refund of the disputed service charge was reasonable. But, as it did not refund the charge until 18 months after the resident had submitted his dispute, the time it took to do so was unreasonable.
14. The resident also disputed a service charge about the landlord’s removal of a tree branch on the resident’s estate. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the communal areas of the estate. This would include the trees located on the grounds. The landlord explained to the resident in its final complaint response that it had responded to the tree branch as a health and safety concern.
15. It is unclear from the landlord’s complaint responses how it came to be aware of the broken tree branch. But, under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for the tree, as this was within the estate boundary. There is no good reason for the landlord not to have responded to the health and safety concern that it was responsible for, regardless of how it had become aware of the hazard. The resident was required to contribute toward the costs for the works to remove the tree branch. Its decision to uphold this service was reasonable. However, it took the landlord 18 months to explain this, which was unreasonable and caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident in pursuing his dispute.
16. The resident disputed the type, amount, and level of caretaking the landlord had completed on the estate during the COVID-19 lockdown. He thought that a caretaker had not attended the estate, and he asked the landlord to clarify this further. The landlord explained in its complaint response that the resident was responsible for the payment of its service charge invoice. It explained that it did not complete some grounds maintenance work items on every estate, but the resident’s service charge was his share of the services it had provided. It further explained that, if his estate had only required grass cutting, this would have been reflected in the service charge cost. It was reasonable for the landlord to have provided this information to the resident to manage his expectations. But, as the resident had asked what caretaking work the landlord had completed, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided this information to address his dispute more accurately.
17. Landlords are expected to keep a record of the housing services they provide. The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence that the services for which it collects a service charge have been completed. The landlord’s failure to explain the caretaking work it had completed was a failing and a missed opportunity for it to evidence how it had calculated the service charge.
18. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong, and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider how the lack of evidence it had provided about caretaking charges may have affected the resident. Furthermore, it did not consider whether it would have been appropriate to award the resident compensation for the delays it had recognised. It failed to put right its failings, which were likely to have caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter as a complaint, and with the Ombudsman. Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge information and services dispute.
19. As previously explained, the Ombudsman cannot assess the level or reasonableness of the service charge, or the extent to which it was payable. This is a matter for the First-Tier Tribunal. However, we have concluded that an award of compensation is due under our remedies guidance. This suggests a range of awards where, like here, maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord and adversely affected the resident. An award in this range of £350 compensation is therefore ordered below for the detriment that may have been caused to the resident from the effect of the landlord’s handling of his service charge dispute. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failings this investigation has identified.

The complaint

20. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Did not accept the resident’s email of 16 May 2022 as a complaint, despite the resident explaining that he had been wating for a response to a dispute he had submitted on 8 September 2021. Additionally, he said that he expected a response within 7 days. This was not in keeping the landlord’s corporate complaints policy, which says a complaint is when anyone is dissatisfied with the service, actions, or lack of action from the landlord.
    2. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint of 3 May 2021, in keeping with paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of this complaint. The Code says that a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
    3. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 and/or the stage 2 complaint in keeping with paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code. These paragraphs say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    4. Did not fully address the complaint, such as by evidencing the caretaking works it had completed, which it had billed the resident for as a service charge. It also did not address the resident’s complaint about its calculation of the outstanding service charge, which he said had been incorrect. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code, which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
21. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged a delay in its handling of the service charge dispute, it offered an apology, and it said that it had changed how its staff managed service charge enquiries. The landlord offered a further apology for its delay in refunding a charge to the service charge account in its final complaint response.
22. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and a review of its operating procedures) was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
23. The landlord recognised a delay in responding to the complaint and it explained that it had amended its procedures. This was appropriate and it evidenced that it had learned from outcomes. However, while the apology sought to put right the matters, the landlord failed to consider whether an award of compensation should be offered to the resident for the delay. It also did not acknowledge the further complaint handling failings this investigation has identified. The landlord has a compensation procedure and was able to offer compensation for poor complaint handling and service failure. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to put things right and regain the resident’s confidence in its housing services.
24. We consider that an award of compensation is due under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance suggests a range of awards where, like here, service failure is found that has not been proportionally addressed by the landlord.
25. An award of £75 within the above range is therefore ordered below, as well as an apology, as proportionate compensation for the inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident from the likely effect of the landlord’s complaint handling failings over a short duration.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge information and services dispute.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

27. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of his service charge dispute and complaint.
    2. Pay the resident £425 total compensation made up of:
       1. £350 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident from the landlord’s handling of his service charge dispute.
       2. £75 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident from the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
28. The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.