Southern Housing (202312625)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312625

Southern Housing Group Limited

4 October 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 request for information regarding service charges associated with water and fire safety.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom flat, since 2015. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the block.
In 2017 the landlord changed its water supply contract from one water company (‘Water Company A’) to another (‘Water Company B’), which it paid directly. In 2020 Water Company A then issued a water bill backdated to 2017. This only came to light when the landlord was preparing the 2020–2021 year end accounts.
The landlord wrote to Water Company B on 16 November 2022. It advised it had held a water supply and wastewater account with the company between 2017-2019. The account was then transferred back to Water Company A which had billed it for the same period. In total it had paid Water Company B £68,836.99. However, it had been advised when speaking to Water Company B that the credit on the account was £63,709.19. The landlord asked that it check its payments and clarify where the sum of £5,127.80 had gone.
Further to his previous contact regarding the water and fire safety service charges the resident emailed the landlord on 29 March 2023. He asked for a call to discuss the service charge increases associated with his block. He said several leaseholders had raised concerns after receiving unexpected bills and incorrect direct debits. He advised he was happy to raise a complaint to ensure the issue was escalated to the correct department and asked for details of how to do this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 March 2023 to confirm it had passed his email to its home ownership team and had asked the team to contact him. Between this date and 17 April 2023 there were a number of missed communications between the landlord and resident. On 17 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that he expected an answer in writing by the end of the day. If he did not receive a response he said he would escalate the matter.
The landlord responded on 18 April 2023. It said it had told the resident that it had informed leaseholders the previous year that it was covering all costs associated with the fire alarm system. His service charge covered maintenance of the alarm and smoke system. The resident emailed back the same day and asked for a copy of the invoices or contract for the fire services.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord forwarded the service certificate for the block. It also said that there was no cost or invoice to residents regarding the fire alarm maintenance, which it covered. The resident responded the same day. He thanked the landlord for confirming it was responsible for the fire alarm maintenance costs. Given the landlord’s confirmation, he wanted to know when residents would receive a refund for the fire safety costs billed in the most recent service charge payment.
On 16 May 2023, the landlord advised it had passed the resident’s latest query to the home ownership team which would respond by 5pm on 23 May 2023. On 23 May 2023 it contacted him again advising that it had passed his request to the responsible team which would contact him before 13 June 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 May 2023 in relation to his request to remove the fire prevention cost from the overall service charge. It said that all residents in the block paid for the fire equipment. This was common in all of its blocks and was included in the lease. It only covered the alarm costs associated with the external cladding. Once the cladding had been replaced the associated alarm would be removed. The other fire equipment was in place to comply with the requirements of the building regulations.
On 24 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. He said:
1. He had sought an explanation regarding the costs associated with fire safety included in his service charge bill on 18 April 2023. In response it had told him that it was responsible for covering all expenses related to the fire alarm system. His service charge covered the “maintenance costs of the alarm/smoke system”.
2. He had then requested the invoices related to the costs of maintaining the alarm/smoke system. In response the landlord forwarded the service certificate for his block. It also said that there were no costs or invoices for residents associated with fire alarm maintenance.
3. Due to the contradictory information he received, he asked the landlord to explain what procedures it followed when providing responses to leaseholders.
4. In a previous financial year, concern had been raised about a duplicate £30,000 water charge that had not been reimbursed. He asked for an update on the steps taken to address that matter.
5. He had little confidence in the landlord’s ability to:
  1. Respond promptly.
  2. Exercise due care when responding.
  3. Substantiate all payment requests with valid invoices or statements of work.
  4. Manage leaseholder funds.
6. He advised that landlords are legally obliged to fully substantiate payments requested from leaseholders and asked for his email to be registered as a formal complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 May 2023 with the following points:
1. It apologised for any confusion caused by its responses. It acknowledged it had not always addressed the points he had been making.
2. Costs related to fire prevention on the service charge statement did not relate to the smoke alarms. The charges were only associated with other fire equipment, namely the smoke ventilation system, dry riser and emergency lights.
3. As no contributions had been made by leaseholders to smoke alarm costs it was not in a position to provide invoices. However, it would request invoices for the other fire prevention measures to be sent to him.
4. It was unaware about the £30,000 charge he referred to but would look into it.
5. It apologised that he was disappointed with the service he had received. It had asked for a member of the complaints team to contact him to discuss it further.
The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 1 August 2023. It said:
1. The year end accounts for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 were delayed due to the issues with the water charges. Once this was resolved it would provide a full list of invoices associated with the year-end accounts.
2. After a change in water supplier between 2017-2019 it had been back billed for water it had already paid for. This had only been discovered when preparing the 2020–2021 service charge accounts. It had requested and had confirmation that a refund would be issued. Under the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (‘the 2005 Order’), it was required to provide, maintain and service fire safety equipment for communal areas and conduct fire risk assessments.
3. Under the Building Safety Act 2022, residents were not required to contribute to the external wall remedial works. It did not include costs associated with the service and maintenance of the fire alarm system or completion of fire risk assessments.
4. Costs not passed on to leaseholders included:
  1. Works to rectify historic defects as defined in the Building Safety Act 2022.
  2. Work carried out relating to interim safety measures such as temporary alarm installations and evacuation management costs.
5. It had applied a credit to the draft 2021/2022 account refunding the costs associated with the fire alarm servicing costs for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.
6. It apologised for the time it had taken to resolve the issue with the water bills and understood the frustration caused to residents.
On 7 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. He said the stage 1 response had not addressed all of his concerns and listed the following points:
1. It had failed to provide a full list of invoices for the costs associated with fire safety.
2. It had failed to provide the accounts for 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022–2023.
3. He had been billed twice for water and wanted to know why after 3 years he had not received a refund. He asked for a log of all of its interactions with Water Company B.
4. Its answer regarding the fire alarm charges was inconsistent. If the charges did not include maintenance and servicing, why was a credit applied in 2021-2022 for fire alarm servicing costs?
5. He asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 and expressed his disappointment at the 6–month timeframe it had taken to respond to his initial query.
6. He asked that his complaint was treated with the utmost priority and that the landlord provided a comprehensive response to all of his unresolved points.
On 21 September 2023, the landlord sent an internal email confirming it had received the refund from Water Company B, 10 months after submitting a request. A total of £61,088.73 had been added to the accounts that day.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 September 2023. It confirmed the following information:
1. Regarding water charges:
  1. It had issued notices under section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 service charge accounts. This was because it had been billed by Water Company A for charges already paid to Water Company B. It had not wanted to issue payment demands as it would have meant residents being double billed.
  2. After speaking with Water Company A it became clear that it had transferred the supply to Water Company B in error.
  3. After several requests to Water Company B about the charges, it advised a credit had been applied to the account. The credit was lower than expected because the company had used the funds to pay small sums on other accounts that the landlord was processing.
  4. Despite requesting the credit in 2022 it was still waiting for it to be paid.
  5. To resolve the issue, it had applied a credit to the 2020–2021 account for the total amount of money paid to Water Company B during 2017-2019. It would claim the credit back separately to prevent further delay in issuing the year end accounts.
  6. The accounts for 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 had now been completed and would be issued by 30 November 2023.
2. Regarding provision of invoices:
  1. Once it had issued the year end accounts as detailed above, it could provide copies of the invoices and supporting documents upon request.
  2. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the requirement to provide invoices and supporting documentation only applied once the year end accounts had been issued.
  3. It did not provide copy invoices and supporting documents for section 20B notices as the costs shown were an indicative amount of total spend and were not finalised accounts.
3. Regarding double billing:
  1. It had not double billed occupants of the resident’s block, therefore no refund was due.
4. Regarding fire safety costs:
  1. Its email of 11 May 2023 stated that there was no cost to residents for fire alarm maintenance, which was covered by the landlord. This information had been incorrect. The costs associated with the service and maintenance of the fire safety equipment and conducting fire risk assessments required by the 2005 Order were payable by residents.
  2. His block had fire prevention equipment installed as was required by the 2005 Order. It had also installed a temporary fire alarm as an interim measure following government guidelines.
  3. The introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022 meant residents were not required to contribute to the external wall system remedial works. It did not include the cost of servicing and maintenance of the fire alarm system and fire risk assessments. It included a link to frequently asked questions on this topic.
5. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it had provided incorrect information regarding recoverable fire safety charges. It offered £90 compensation comprised of:
  1. £15 for the incorrect information about recoverable fire safety charges.
  2. £75 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.
6. From his complaint it had learned lessons and would provide staff training on what fire safety costs were recoverable as service charges.

Post complaint

On 17 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that some information in its stage 2 response regarding testing, monitoring and servicing of the temporary fire alarm systems was incorrect. Its letter incorrectly advised the costs of these services was charged to residents. It confirmed it did not charge residents for the costs associated with the temporary fire alarms.
The resident responded on 23 October 2023. He asked if the landlord would be issuing a new stage 2 letter or if he should register a new complaint. He confirmed he had since obtained the invoices associated with the fire alarm. He stated that these invoices demonstrated that residents had been charged for fire alarm maintenance costs, contrary to its email on 17 October 2023. He further asked the landlord to review its explanation related to the water charge as he believed that it was incorrect.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 February 2024 with the following points:
1. He believed the accounting associated with the service charges was incorrect and wanted to report this to the appropriate individual.
2. He had lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to prepare financial records and wanted to understand the steps it was taking to ensure the accounts were accurate.
3. He requested the name of the individual responsible for preparing the accounts as he wanted to refer them to their accrediting body for negligence.
4. He asked why the deadlines and terms stipulated in its letter were not adhered to, which required him as a leaseholder to point out the error.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Under paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. This Service can look at whether the landlord provided an explanation but is unable to determine the reasonableness of any increase in service charge. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal. The resident may wish to seek further advice on this issue from the Leasehold Advisory Service or First Tier Tribunal.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request about his service charges

Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period:
1. Only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and
2. Where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard.
Sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 allow leaseholders to obtain information about how their service charges are calculated:
1. Section 21 provides a leaseholder with the right to request a summary of service charge accounts from the landlord.
2. Section 22 allows a leaseholder to obtain further information by inspecting accounts and receipts.
The lease outlines the services the landlord must provide in relation to the management and maintenance of the building as well as the provision of utilities. These are:
1. Clause 5.3: Maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and improve the common parts of the building and estate as well as the pipes, sewers, drains, water apparatus, and machinery in and upon the building and estate.
Through the provision of these services the landlord is allowed to charge a proportion of the incurred costs (the service charge) to the leaseholder. The service charge must be calculated in accordance with the following specific clauses in the lease:
1. Clause 7.3: the costs associated with the service provision for the accounting year shall be calculated before the beginning of that year in accordance with clause 7.4.
2. Clause 7.4: the costs estimated by the landlord for the service provision for that accounting year. As well as an appropriate amount to be held in reserve for matters that may result in additional costs that occur after the accounting year or are likely to arise once during the unexpired term or at intervals of more than 1 year. As well as the matter specified in clause 7.5.
3. Clause 7.5: the relevant expenditure included for the service provision will include all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the building and estate including…clause 5.3…. And any charges and outgoings whatsoever charged or payable in respect of the whole of the estate or common parts.
4. Clause 7.6: as soon as possible after the end of the accounting year the landlord shall determine and certify the amount by which its estimated expenditure exceeded or fell short of its actual expenditure. The leaseholder will be presented with a certificate of the accounts and shall be refunded any excess or have to pay towards the shortfall.
The landlord’s recoverable service charge policy states that it will explore what it is paying for services to get an accurate picture of what the services will cost. It will check annually what it charged against what it actually cost to provide the services. It will then either refund or charge the difference to the leaseholder. It says it will give clear information about what leaseholders are paying for.
The landlord’s fire safety and cladding information on its website says:
1. Its policy had been updated to reflect the new government position. It would not pass on costs to leaseholders for:
2. Any fire safety remediation works it undertakes related to historic defects as defined by the Building Safety Act 2022.
3. Work carried out relating to interim measures, including temporary alarm installations and evacuation management costs such as waking watch.
4. This applied to all leaseholders irrespective of the height of the building lived in.

Water service charges

While it is not disputed that the water company changed in 2017, the landlord has provided little evidence of its communications with either of the water companies. We have therefore been unable to determine the exact sequence of events in this transfer and the resulting payments. However, it is agreed by all parties that the landlord was double billed £68,836.99 for water. It is also not clear if the whole of this sum is associated with the resident’s block.
The landlord has indicated that it became aware of the overpayment when preparing the 2020-2021 accounts. However, it was not until November 2022 that it wrote to the Water Company B to request a repayment. This was an unreasonable amount of time given the large sums of money involved and the scale of the potential associated impact on affected residents . It is additionally unreasonable that this is the only contact the landlord has provided to demonstrate that it was chasing repayment. Given the significant sum of money, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to be pursuing the payment at least monthly until received.
The resident was concerned that he had been double billed by the landlord in relation to these costs. The resident’s certified accounts provided by the landlord show an approximate £30 fluctuation in what was charged to him between 2017-2023. This would indicate that he was not double billed. However, the same accounts show a significant fluctuation in the “actual cost” of water over the same period. For instance, the actual cost in 2016–2017 was £387.26; in 2018–2019, £625; in 2019-2020, £292; and in 2022–2023 it was £925.22. Despite numerous requests for information, it is unreasonable that the landlord has not provided a clear explanation that resolves the resident’s query regarding the water charges.
Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and section 7.5 of the lease allow for charges to be made where they have been reasonably incurred. As such, the double billed water charges should never have been added to the service charge account. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it had added a credit to the 2020–2021 year end accounts for the total money paid to Water Company B (£68,836.99). The certified accounts for that year and the following year do not show any credit for this amount or any amount close to it. The resident queried the landlord’s explanation on the water charges given in the stage 2 response on 23 October 2023. Unacceptably, the landlord did not respond.
As previously stated, the landlord paid Water Company B £68,836. In its email to that Water Company when chasing the payment, it stated that the credit on the account was £63,709. This was £5,127.80 less than it had paid. The landlord acknowledged internally that it had received the refund on 21 September 2023, 10 months after submitting its request. The total it had received was £61,088. It did not mention that this was now £7,748 less than it had originally paid. This discrepancy is concerning. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to provide an explanation for the shortfall. Despite the resident’s requests for information and his formal complaints pursuing the matter, the landlord has not informed him that it received the refund. This was a missed opportunity to restore confidence in its processes.

Fire safety service charges

The lease requires the resident to pay towards the service charges associated with the normally expected fire safety measures in his building. In line with the Building Safety Act 2022 the landlord cannot charge for the remediation of historic defects or temporary fire safety measures linked to those defects.
The resident made a request for an explanation to understand the costs being applied to the service charge as he believed he was being incorrectly charged. In total the landlord provided 7 responses to the resident on the topic. The responses were conflicting and confusing. In several instances, the responses were contrary to the requirements of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the landlord’s own policy. It is unacceptable that the landlord has not been able to deliver a clear and consistent explanation on these charges. Its responses have caused unnecessary frustration to the resident.
The landlord then caused further confusion when it refunded the fire safety charges in 2021–2022 without any explanation. Its actions suggest it may have been incorrectly charging the resident and possibly other residents in the block. It was unreasonable that it did not clarify the purpose of this credit to demonstrate openness.
In line with sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the resident made numerous requests for a summary of the service charge accounts and associated fire safety invoices. The accounts were significantly delayed due to the ongoing issues associated with the water charges. The landlord listed several reasons why it would not provide the invoices. This served to undermine the resident’s confidence and trust in the landlord.
It is important for landlords to remember that, as they are spending residents’ money, those residents have the right to scrutinise and question what is being done with that money. There are of course legal obligations that must be complied with in the provision of information associated with service charges, as discussed above. However, in the spirit of transparency and openness, landlords should deal with requests in a fair and reasonable manner and seek to provide information at the earliest opportunity. This would have been especially beneficial in this case.
The resident received the relevant invoices in October 2023. He wrote to the landlord advising that the invoices indicated residents had been charged for fire alarm maintenance costs, contrary to its previous explanations. The landlord did not respond, which was unacceptable and further undermined the resident’s trust in the process.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for clarification on the service charges associated with water and fire safety has been poor. Its responses have lacked openness and transparency and have caused confusion and frustration to the resident. The landlord failed to deliver a clear explanation on the resident’s queries as required by its recoverable service charge policy. It is the Ombudsman’s decision that the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration.

Wider order

This investigation has revealed serious failings associated with the landlord’s administration of the water and fire safety service charges, which will have affected other residents. We have recently determined case 202233614 which had similar issues associated with service charges. We have therefore issued a wider order under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures outlined above, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Complaint handling

When the Ombudsman finds failings, it is our role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has a 2–stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days. If it needs an extension, it will contact the complainant to agree a timescale. In its response it will detail its decision and the details of any outstanding or further actions and how it will monitor those actions. It will acknowledge stage 2 escalation requests within 5 working days. A complaint panel deals with review requests. However, the procedure followed at the time of the resident’s complaint did not detail the time period for holding a review. This was at odds with the 2022 Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). As this has since been addressed by the landlord, no order has been made in relation to this point. Following a stage 2 review, the panel will issue its decision within 10 working days. If an extension is required, the landlord will contact the complainant to agree a timescale.
In his email on 29 March 2023 the resident asked for details on how to make a complaint so that it could be brought to the attention of the correct person. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide the information. This ultimately lengthened the timescales of the complaint, causing additional inconvenience to the resident. Even if it was able to resolve the issue without a complaint being logged it should have responded to his request.
The resident raised his complaint on 24 May 2023. The landlord contacted him and apologised for the confusion caused by its responses. It said it would ask the complaints team to contact him. This did not happen. There is no evidence that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint. While it was right to apologise, and advise it would pass the complaint on, failing to formally acknowledge the complaint led to uncertainty and frustration for the resident. In all it was, 50 working days before the landlord issued its stage 1 response. which was a failure to comply with its own policy and the Code. The landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the issues with the water. It did not confirm if it upheld the resident’s complaint as required by the code and failed to acknowledge that its response was late The landlord’s omissions were a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint in the first instance and caused ongoing inconvenience to the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 August 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 24 August 2023. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation, although it was disappointing that the acknowledgement was 14 working days outside the requirements of its policy. The stage 2 panel hearing was held on 4 September 2023. In line with the policy the response was due on 15 September 2023. However, the landlord communicated the expected date to the resident and provided an interim update advising the response would be late, which was appropriate.
Both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses contained incorrect information about the fire safety service charges. The landlord notified the resident on 17 October 2023 that the stage 2 response contained errors, however, it did not notify him that the same errors were present in the stage 1 response. The resident then asked if the landlord would be re-issuing its response in light of the errors. It did not respond, which was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to rebuild the landlord and leaseholder relationship. He chased a response on 8 February 2024 and was told on 12 February 2024 that a member of the customer experience team would contact him within 5 working days. This did not happen. He tried again on 29 February 2024 and again received no response. The poor communication on the part of the landlord left the resident feeling unheard and frustrated. He told this Service, “it got to the point where he just gave up”.
The landlord emailed the resident 2 compensation forms: one for £90 and the other for £30. The forms were returned by the resident on 18 January 2024. Between that date and 9 April 2024, the resident emailed the landlord 4 times chasing the compensation. He received 2 responses stating that his request had been passed to the customer experience team which would contact him, but it did not. In all it took 4 months for the compensation to be paid. This timescale was unreasonable and caused ongoing frustration, which undermined the landlord’s complaints process.
Through its complaint responses the landlord demonstrated that it had not learned from its earlier failures in this case. While it was right to offer compensation, the amount offered was insufficient and did not recognise a number of its failures. This, along with its failure to state if it upheld the complaint at stage 1 and its failure to follow up on post complaint communications, indicates it did not put things right for the resident. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling failures and the repeated delays have contributed to a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for clarification on the water and fire safety service charges.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident and any other affected residents for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance amended on 17 April 2024.
2. Pay the resident £400. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £90 (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer). It is comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for clarification on the water and fire safety service charges.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out an audit of the service charges associated with the water supply to the resident’s block going back to 2017. The review must be carried out within 16 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. It should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of the landlord’s actions related to the double billing of water service charges including:
  1. An explanation for the significant fluctuations in the actual cost of water between 2017- 2024.
  2. The identification of any over charges to residents associated with the double billing.
  3. An explanation for the shortfall in the refunded payment and whether the shortfall impacted on the service charges paid by residents.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure.
3. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are aware of the correct procedure should similar instances happen in the future.
In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out an audit of the service charges associated with fire safety to the resident’s block from the date where temporary fire safety measures were introduced. The review must be carried out within 16 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. It should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the fire safety service charge failings identified by this investigation occurred.
2. The identification of any over charges to residents associated with the temporary fire safety measures at the residents’ block that were prohibited under the Building Safety Act 2022.
3. An explanation for the credit to the resident’s fire safety service charge in 2020-2021.
4. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure.
5. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are aware of what costs associated with fire safety can and cannot be charged to residents as part of their service charges.
Following both reviews, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the reviews.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation equal to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
5. A copy of the report should be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.