Retirement Lease Housing Association (RLHA) (202307685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307685

Retirement Lease Housing Association (RLHA)

26 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s queries regarding their service charge.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The property is a flat within a wider building consisting of independent retirement living accommodation. The landlord is the freeholder. The landlord is a housing association.
In June and July 2022 the resident, having received the audited service charge accounts for the previous financial year, asked the landlord about some of the provided information. They also asked about items they believed the landlord was planning to include in the service charge.
On 22 August 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. They said:
1. There had been a lack of timely responses and information about how their service charge contributions, in particular to the future maintenance fund, were being spent.
2. The landlord was asking leaseholders to fund a new stock condition survey. Leaseholders had previously paid for a survey in 2016. They had also paid for a 10-year survey in 2017 that was supposed to cover up until 2026/27.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 September 2022. It said:
1. It accepted it had not always provided responses in a timely manner and this was an area where it could improve.
2. Minutes from the last budget meeting and the last accounts meeting showed the landlord was providing information and responding to queries.
3. It was satisfied it had provided relevant information to explain the level of the service charge.
4. It is the industry standard to carry out planned and preventative maintenance surveys every 5 years. Surveys were intended to provide a detailed 5-year budget and an overall forecast for years 6-10. It was necessary to renew a survey after 5 years to consider any market changes and/or changes to the property condition.
5. It had used the best available information to set the future maintenance fund contribution at a reasonable level.
6. Stock condition surveys were a service charge cost. The previous surveys were not deficient. It had explained why it needed to carry out a new survey.
7. It was committed to positive engagement and visited the location every 6 to 8 weeks. The resident could contact it if they would like to arrange to meet during one of the visits.
On 29 December 2022 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They asked that the landlord’s board review their complaint and said:
1. The lack of timely responses had continued. The landlord had not yet answered questions asked at a meeting on 8 September 2022.
2. The landlord had not provided them with information about the maintenance programme for 2017 to 2026.
3. The landlord should have formally agreed any new or updated stock condition survey with residents.
4. The resident did not consider face-to-face meetings were adequate to resolve the sort of issues they were raising.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 December 2022. It said it was sorry its previous responses had not been in line with the resident’s expectations. It was confident its teams had done their best and it would always endeavour to respond in as timely a manner as possible. It advised its board did not review operational queries and the resident’s complaint was not something it would consider.
On 17 August 2023 the resident confirmed they wanted this Service to investigate their complaint.
On 25 February 2025 the resident confirmed their complaint was about:
1. The lack of information about how the landlord calculated the service charge, including contributions to the future maintenance fund, for each financial year.
2. The delay in carrying out the stock condition survey. They said the landlord had only carried this out in April 2024 despite saying it was needed in 2022.
3. The landlord’s lack of dedicated timescales to respond to queries. They said the landlord rarely acknowledged or replied to emails.
4. The landlord had not escalated their complaint to the board. It had not explained what it meant by ‘operational queries’ or adhered to its complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increases.
The resident’s complaint included matters that related to the reasonableness and/or level of their service charge. While the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint about their service charge, it does not have the jurisdiction to consider whether the service charge was reasonable, as that would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). If the resident still wishes to challenge the reasonableness of their service charge they may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The complaint made to and investigated by the landlord did not include any concerns about the delay in carrying out the stock condition survey. We will therefore not be considering this matter as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding their service charge.

The resident’s lease sets out that they are required to pay a service charge. The lease clarifies the service charge shall include all expenditure by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance, and provision of services for the property. The lease provides a non-exhaustive list of matters that the landlord shall include in the service charge.
The lease also entitles the landlord to charge an appropriate amount that it will place in a reserve fund. This fund is for matters that the landlord will need to pay for in the future and are likely to either only arise once or at intervals of more than a year. Any contribution should be set at a level that means, as far as is reasonably practicable, the service charge does not unduly fluctuate from year to year.
There is no evidence that the landlord has charged the resident for anything that it was not entitled to do so as part of the lease.
The landlord states that it provides leaseholders with an estimated budget before each accounting year and audited accounts after each accounting year has ended. There does not appear to be any dispute that it provided this information to the resident.
The resident did, prior to their complaint, make requests to the landlord for further information about their service charge. The landlord’s service standards state that it will reply to letters within 5 working days and emails within 48 hours. Where it is unable to resolve a matter immediately it will keep the resident informed of the progress of their request.
The available evidence is insufficient for the Ombudsman to be satisfied that the landlord responded to the resident in line with the above stated timescales or kept the resident updated on the progress of their queries. There is also insufficient evidence that the landlord provided responses to all the matters the resident had raised, either by providing the requested information or explaining it had no further information it could give. This was not appropriate.
In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it had used the 2017 stock condition survey to set the contribution for the future maintenance fund. It advised the survey had forecasted that the roof would require re-covering in 2022 and this would cost approximately £222,000. It said that, as there had been insufficient money in the future maintenance fund, it had been prudent for it to keep the contribution at the same level when setting the budget in October 2021. It further advised that while the roof works were no longer necessary that financial year they would be required in the future. This was a reasonable explanation for the landlord to have provided.
In their complaint the resident indicated the landlord had provided them with a spreadsheet from 2017. This appears to have been an appendix to the 2017 stock condition survey and details a 10-year capital expenditure programme. For each financial year from 2017 to 2026 it sets out the proposed required works and associated costs. It also shows a proposed income each year of £40,000 (the level of the future maintenance fund contribution). While the Ombudsman accepts the document is marked as a draft, there is no evidence to indicate this was not the most current information about the planned maintenance programme.
The landlord provided a reasonable explanation about why a new stock condition survey was necessary. We have noted the resident disputed that the residents’ association had agreed to the survey. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to get agreement from the association or individual leaseholders.
While the landlord accepted that it had failed to respond in a timely manner it did not provide any clear information about how it intended to remedy that failing. Stating it had committed in May 2022 to improving its communications was not a sufficient response. Given that it was still not responding in line with its service standards it should have clearly set out what actions it intended to take to ensure it would meet the standards in future.
It is clear the resident needed to chase the landlord to get responses to their queries. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this and considered whether it was appropriate to provide redress. There is no evidence that it did this.
In conclusion, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries regarding their service charge. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations like this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

At the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint it appears the landlord was operating a 3-stage complaints process. Its policy stated it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. Stage 2 was a review by the Chief Executive with a response due within 5 working days. A resident could then make a request for an appeal to the board. The board would review the file and decide whether this was appropriate.
The Ombudsman is aware that, since the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has updated its complaint policy to bring it in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on the same day it received it. This was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
The landlord took 19 working days to issue its stage 1 response. It did write to the resident during that period to advise it would need more time to respond, but that was still 12 working days after its acknowledgement. Neither period was in line with its policy and the time taken by the landlord was not appropriate.
The landlord took 6 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate.
The landlord’s Chief Executive issued the stage 2 response, as required by its policy. However, any ‘review’ of the resident’s complaint appears to have been minimal. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the further concerns the resident had raised in their escalation request. This was a missed opportunity to address those concerns as well as consider whether any further actions were appropriate or necessary to resolve the complaint. This would have demonstrated a focus on customer service and may have prevented the need for the resident to further escalate their complaint.
The landlord has told this Service that it had not escalated the resident’s complaint to the board as the chairman was satisfied that everything had been dealt with properly and lessons had been learned. The landlord has stated that the chairman was aware of the complaint and the performance improvement measures that the landlord had put in place. The landlord has advised it had decided the matters raised by the resident were routine operational matters that it had resolved or was in the process of improving.
The landlord did not give the above explanation to the resident, nor is there any evidence that the board was involved in the decision. There is no basis on which the Ombudsman can reasonably conclude that the landlord had acted in line with its policy when refusing to escalate the resident’s complaint to the board.
Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses provided clear information about what stage the complaint was at, how the resident could escalate their complaint to the next stage, or their rights to approach the Housing Ombudsman. This was not reasonable.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
The landlord did not acknowledge or address any of the above identified failures in its complaint responses. It did not provide any remedy or redress to the resident. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries regarding their service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £250. This comprises of:
  1. £100 in recognition of its failures in handling the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. £150 in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
The landlord must within 56 days of the date of this determination review its handling of the resident’s queries. This review should consider:
1. Whether there were any obstacles that had prevented it from responding in line with its published service standards. If so, it should identify whether there is a risk of similar failures occurring in the future and what steps it could take to minimise these.
2. How it will ensure and monitor that it is responding to future enquiries from residents in line with its published customer service standards.
3. How it will ensure comprehensive responses are provided to service charge enquiries at the earliest opportunity, considering any statutory obligations.
The landlord must provide a copy of this review and its findings to the Ombudsman to comply with this order.