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

Trident Housing Association Limited (202230288)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230288

Trident Housing Association Limited

19 November 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Decision that the resident was liable for service charges.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant of the landlord since 10 February 2003. The property is a first floor 1 bedroom flat and the landlord is a housing association. The resident has a fair rent tenancy agreement with the landlord. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident has paid service charges for the car park and barrier maintenance and the TV aerial and satellite maintenance for several years.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 6 March 2023. His complaint was about paying for services which he did not receive or need. He said he paid service charges for a car park and barrier maintenance and did not receive the service. He also raised that the landlord charged him for the TV aerial and satellite maintenance when he did not require that service.
  4. On 16 March 2023, the landlord asked the resident for a 10 day extension to respond to his complaint. It issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and said:
    1. It carried out the fair rent review in 2020 and based on actual costs from the 2016-2017 financial year. The service charge included maintenance charges for the car parking barrier and the TV aerial. It confirmed the process for reviewing the rent and service charges for fair rent tenancies and concluded that it had correctly followed the process. It also explained the different approach to rent and service charges for other tenures. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
    2. It explained that as a fair rent tenant, it may have charged the resident a service charge for expected items which would not have transpired after the rent was agreed. It also said that it would not have charged the resident retrospectively for the unexpected costs that may have incurred during that year.
    3. It explained that it asked the valuation office agency to remove the yearly charges for the TV aerial and satellite maintenance as well as the car parking and barrier maintenance from the service charges. It said it was waiting for a response.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 May 2023, he asked the landlord to clarify when it installed the new aerial system and how long he had paid for the service. He asked the landlord to confirm when it decommissioned the car park barrier and how long he had paid for the service since decommissioned.
  6. The landlord acknowledged his request on 6 June 2023, and issued it stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 29 June 2023. It responded to the resident’s questions and said:
    1. It estimated that it installed the new aerial system before September 2012, which was the date of the analogue TV switchover. It confirmed that it installed the new car park barrier in 2015, and that following consultation with resident, it agreed to decommission it in 2017.
    2. It confirmed that the resident was charged for the TV aerial system and the car park barrier between 2014 and 2021. It explained that in 2014, the service charge element of the rent would have been based on costs prior to that year. It acknowledges that did not have access to records prior to 2018 and was unable to provide an accurate breakdown of the service charges showing that the resident paid for the barrier or TV aerial prior to 22 March 2021.
    3. It reiterated that as a fair rent tenant, the resident was not entitled to any refund or had not contributed to any unexpected additional costs that may have incurred.
    4. It did not uphold his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The Scheme governs what the Ombudsman can and cannot consider, this is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint. The Scheme states:
  2. Paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  3. Paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in March 2023, the complaint was about the landlord’s decision that the resident was liable to pay service charges for the car park and barrier maintenance as well as the TV aerial and satellite maintenance. The resident disagrees that he should have paid for either services. It explained that he had not received a service for the car park and the barrier since 2017. He also argued that whilst the landlord charged him for the TV aerial and satellite maintenance, he did not require that service. He feels that the landlord should offer him a refund for the charges he had paid for those services.
  5. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about whether the service charges are reasonable or payable. Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First-Tier Tribunal can look at whether a refund of service charges should be given. As we cannot look at the level of service charges, we would not be able to tell the landlord to refund or remove those charges. However, we can look at the landlord’s communication around the service charges and response to the resident’s complaint about this matter.
  6. Therefore, after considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s administration of his service charges is out of jurisdiction.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about his service charges on 2 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged his complaint 2 days later. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with its complaint policy to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
  2. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. It states that landlords must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if a landlord needs more time to respond, it must agree an extension with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint policy is in keeping with the Code.
  3. In this case, the landlord asked the resident for a 10 day extension to respond to his stage 1 complaint and apologised to the resident for the delay. Whilst any delay in responding to a complaint is unfortunate, at times it is unavoidable. When this happens, it is essential for landlords to keep residents informed and prevent them from feeling unheard. Therefore, in this case, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, it informed the resident of the delay and reassured him that it would respond to his complaint within the new timeframe. This was in keeping with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
  4. When making an agreement with a resident, it is important for a landlord to keep to it or communicate any changes to the resident. This is key to developing good and trusting working relationships with residents. In this case, although the landlord had informed the resident that it would respond to his complaint within 10 working days, it responded 31 days later. This was 21 days outside the timeframe it had agreed with the resident. The landlord did not show that it contacted the resident to explain the additional delay. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not keeping with the Code or its policy.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord explained in its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint that the delay was due to staff absence. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to have processes in place to ensure continuity of service, even when unplanned staff absence happens. Therefore, while this was an explanation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, this was not a valid reason for the delay. Especially as it had already delayed responding to the resident’s complaint when it requested an extension. This was unreasonable and left the resident with his complaint unanswered for several weeks.
  6. The resident made a request to escalate his complaint on 17 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged his request 8 working days outside its published timeframe, which was unreasonable. In addition, the evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint 10 working days outside its published timeframe. It did not show that it discussed an extension with the resident. This was inappropriate from the landlord, it was not in keeping with its policy or the Code. Furthermore, the landlord failed to show that it had learnt from its failings at stage 1 and put measures in place to prevent repeating the same mistakes. This was unreasonable and impacted the resident and landlord relationship. It also contributed to the resident losing faith in the landlord’s ability to resolve disputes in keeping with the dispute resolution principles of fairness, putting things right and learning from outcomes.
  7. Additionally, the landlord wrote to the resident on 3 July 2023, it requested the resident to stop visiting the office to discuss his complaint with staff who did not know the details of his complaint. It explained that the resident had visited the office several times to discuss his complaint. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord had issued its final response to the resident’s complaint a few days prior to sending its letter. However, some of the resident’s visits to the office happened during the internal complaint process and immediately after receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response to his complaint. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s handling of the matter and the letter it sent to the resident as part of this investigation into its complaint handling.
  8. The Ombudsman understands that only certain staff members would have had knowledge of the resident’s complaint and would have been able to respond to his queries about it. However, asking the resident to stop visiting the office to discuss his complaint was inappropriate. The landlord did not show that it was sensitive and sympathetic to the resident’s disappointment at the outcome of his complaint. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to point out that not all its staff could respond to his query, it would have been reasonable to offer the resident a single point of contact to discuss the outcome of his complaint. Especially as his complaint related to service charges, which is an area that can be difficult to understand and grasp without specialised knowledge. The landlord’s failings to adopt a more sensitive approach toward the resident impacted on its relationship with him and contributed toward the resident’s feelings of “being let down” and unheard.
  9. The Ombudsman understand that the resident disputes that the service charges were payable and feels that he should get a refund. However, as mentioned earlier in this report, this is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to determine the level of service charges or whether a refund is due. However, we can consider whether the landlord responded to this element of the resident’s complaint. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and provided an explanation for its actions and conclusions, which was reasonable and what we would expect from a landlord in responding to a complaint.
  10. After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it failed to respond within its published timeframe and show learning from its failings in its complaint handling at stage 1 and repeated some of its failings at stage 2. It also failed to demonstrate that it was sensitive to the resident’s concerns about the complaint and his disappointment following its final response to his complaint and adequately responded to his queries. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord apologised for some of its failings, however its apology did not reflect its complaint handling failings at stage 2. Whilst the landlord’s failings were short in duration and no evidence was seen that those impacted on the resident’s overall outcome, those caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. Therefore, in accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.d. and 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s decision that the resident was liable for service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. To pay £100 in compensation directly to the resident to reflect its complaint handling failings.