Clarion Housing Association Limited (202003044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003044

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 June 2021

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling and administration of the resident’s service charge payments.
2. The level of the service charge.
3. The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint about these matters.

Jurisdiction

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 will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The level of the service charge

Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate 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”. Should the resident wish to pursue the matter of the increase of the service charge amount, he has the option of making an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) (“FTT”). The FTT has the power to make decisions that are legally binding on the parties.
The FTT can make determinations on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge, including who is payable by and who it is payable to, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability, the tribunal also looks at whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable. The FTT can also determine cases where the complainant has alleged that there has been a failure of statutory requirements and where the determination of the complaint would be reliant on determination of a contested legal issue.

Scope of the Ombudsman’s Investigation

The issues raised by the resident in his complaint partly relate to matters that occurred in 2014 and 2015. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to July 2019. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in January 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident’s current landlord took on the responsibility for the freehold of the property following a merger with the resident’s previous landlord in 2016.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised the landlord will provide a complaint response within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response they can, within 20 working days of the date of the response, request an escalation to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a peer review and send its final response to the complaint within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The landlord’s complaint policy also states that it normally would not consider opening complaints into matters that occurred six months prior to a complaint being raised unless there is a good reason for the delay.

Summary of events

On 30 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that his service charge account was in arrears. The letter asked the resident to contact the landlord to arrange payment.
At some point after receiving this letter, the resident contacted the landlord and disputed that his account was in arrears. The landlord wrote again to the resident on 31 October 2019 and informed him that it would investigate the matter and then contact him.
An internal landlord email sent on 17 January 2020 stated that it had been contacted by the resident who had informed it that he had paid a £450 charge for major works twice, in error. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 January 2020 and request proof of payment of the disputed charge to allow it to investigate further.
On 21 January 2020 the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes of the describe the elements of the complaint as:
1. The resident was unhappy with the level of service he had received from the landlord in relation to his service charge.
2. He wanted the matter raised as a formal complaint when he first contacted the landlord about this issue in July 2019, but it had been dealt with as an enquiry.
3. He is unhappy that he was required to find proof of the payments himself when the landlord should already have a record of this.
The landlord called the resident on 11 February 2020 to discuss the complaint. The landlord then sent a letter to the resident on 21 February 2020 which explained that a finance adjustment was made to correct the balance of the account on the old payments system by removing a payment for major works which was paid in 2017.
The resident called the landlord on 26 February 2020 and informed it that he did not understand the figures provided in the 12 February 2020 email. The landlord informed the resident that it would arrange a phonecall to explain the issues.
The resident called again on 5 February 2020 and stated that he was not convinced by the explanation given by the landlord and called again on 9 February 2020 to request that the matter was escalated.
The landlord attempted to arrange a call to the resident. However, the landlord’s call logs state that on 11 March 2020 the resident informed it that the call had yet to go ahead.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 13 March 2020. It informed him that it would be closing the complaint as it could no longer progress the matter. The landlord explained that it was in the process of collecting records prior to 2016 to continue its investigation into his service charge account and that it would continue to correspond with the resident in order to reach a resolution.
The landlord then informed the resident that if it disagreed with its decision he could, within 20 working days, request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord added that the resident would need to set out his reasons for the escalation with his request
On 26 March 2020 the landlord wrote again to the resident and informed him that it had concluded its investigation into his service charge account. The landlord included all billings and payments received since 2017 and the statement for major works. It asked the resident to inform it of any payments he had made that were not listed and that it would look into it.
The resident replied on 20 June 2020. If informed the landlord that he had undertaken a review of his account and discovered an error was made in the calculation of his service charge account as the charge for major works of £407.91 was added, despite this being paid in 2014. The resident provided a spreadsheet to the landlord which showed that his account balance should currently be £25.17 in credit. The resident also posted evidence to the landlord to support his calculation.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 July 2020. It explained a payment was transferred from major works to the service charge account and that he wasn’t charged twice.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 2 July 2020 and disputed its position. He noted that the service charge bill for 2014/15 was for £885.74, which included the major works. This was paid and the then the £407.91 was added back into his service charge account despite it already being paid. The resident also requested that the matter be escalated.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 July 2020 and asked him to highlight on the statement that it had previously sent him where he thought he had been billed twice for major works and it would investigate further.
The resident wrote back on 6 July 2020. He declined the landlord’s request and pointed to the evidence he had provided. He further noted that if it was unable to resolve the issue with the letters and statements he had provided, the matter should be escalated.
The landlord called the resident on 7 July 2020 to discuss the issue. Following the telephone call the landlord sent an email with an amalgamated rent statement that showed the major works, service charges and payments in a single document. The landlord also provided a breakdown of the 2014 service charge of £772.86 and explained that this did not include a payment for the major works. The landlord offered to call the resident at a convenient time to go through the information line-by-line. The call was arranged for 10 July 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 July 2020 after their telephone conversation and explained his position. He noted that:
1. The information provided by the landlord is incorrect and shows a second charge for major works.
2. During the telephone call he was informed he was unable to escalate the matter and that there was no current complaint open. This was also incorrect as he had raised a complaint in January 2020.
3. Two letters he received in 2015 and provided to the landlord confirm that the payment for major works went through in 2014.
4. He was dissatisfied with the level of service he had received from the landlord over the past two years he had attempted to resolve the matter.
On 12 July 2020 the resident provided copies of the two 2015 letter he referenced in his previous email. The landlord replied on 13 July 2020 and informed the resident that:
1. All the paperwork provided by the resident confirm that the major works were billed in August 2015 and asked the resident to confirm the date where he thinks the double billing occurred.
2. The resident can escalate the matter or open a new complaint if he wished, but the landlord requested the chance to resolve the matter first during the 10 July 2020 telephone conversation. It would also investigate his concerns about his previous complaint being incorrectly closed.
On 14 July 2020 the resident called this service and expressed his dissatisfaction that his formal complaint had been closed by the landlord.
This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, who then wrote to the resident on 17 July 2020. It explained that after sending its stage one response on 31 March 2020, it had no record of an escalation request from the resident; However, if the resident sent a request within the next 20 working days it would consider reopening and escalating the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two on the grounds that:
1. He had provided evidence that showed the major works charge appeared twice in his account
2. The calculation of the major works charge was incorrect.
3. Charges for day-to-day repairs should be at £93.34 and not £123.09.
4. He would like to be supplied with service charge bills from 2013 to 2019.
The landlord escalated the complaint on 3 August 2020 and sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 28 August 2020. The landlord informed him that:
1. It had undertaken a further review of his service charge account and can confirm that there was no overcharging during the period highlighted by the resident.
2. As requested, it provided service charge payments and charges between 2013 and 2019.
3. It acknowledged that it took three weeks for it to open a formal complaint when the resident made a request in January 2020. It apologised for the delay and awarded £25 compensation in view of this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling and administration of service charge payments.

As explained above, the Ombudsman is unable to consider whether the service charges for 2014 and 2015 were applied correctly and we cannot order the landlord to issue a refund of any of these charges. However, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s more recent communication with the resident in response to his queries about his service charge account. We have assessed whether this communication was clear and accurate and whether it was delivered in a reasonable timeframe.
In response to the resident’s queries in 2020, the landlord has provided evidence that showed that the major works charge appeared once on his service charge statement on 1 August 2015 and that payment for this was taken in June 2017. It also provided a statement showing the resident’s account balance from December 2013 to October 2019. This listed all payments and charges for this time, including the major works appearing in August 2015, and gave a final balance of £479.97.
The resident disputed this final balance, held that he had also been charged for the major works in 2014 and provided two letters to the landlord to support his position.
The first letter, dated 24 August 2015, explains that the major works charge of £407.91 was for external redecoration carried out in 2012/13. The second document provided by the resident is an undated page of a stage one response from a complaint he had raised with the previous landlord prior to the merger. The page relates to a credit refund given to the resident due to the difference in estimated charges and actual charges from his service charge bill for 2014/15.
The page from the complaint response also stated that the landlord had previously provided the resident with information regarding the major works charge. However, the page makes no reference to a payment for the major works being charged in 2014.
The landlord provided the resident with service charge invoices from 2013 onwards and explained the payments and charges on his account line-by-line during their correspondence. Therefore, the landlord has given a reasonable response to the resident’s queries and has clearly explained its position regarding the historic service charge payments, although it is acknowledged that this has not resolved the dispute regarding the payments.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord accepted that it did not properly acknowledge the resident’s request to open a formal complaint on 21 January 2020. This resulted in a three-week delay in providing a stage one complaint response. The landlord apologised to the resident and awarded £25 compensation.
The stage one response sent on 13 March 2020 advised the resident that he could request an escalation of the complaint within 20 working days. However, the resident did not request an escalation until 20 June 2020; over three months later. The landlord was therefore under no obligation to reopen the complaint.
It should be noted that the resident was in regular contact with the landlord by email and telephone, where the resident highlighted the issues he had with his service charge account and the major works charge. The replied promptly and in detail to all of the resident’s queries. This correspondence was ongoing during the three-week delay in providing a stage one response and also during the period where the complaint was closed.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately during the complaint process. It acknowledged the delay in providing the stage one complaint response and awarded suitable redress to the resident along with an apology. Following the intervention of this Service, the landlord made the decision to reopen the complaint and addressed the outstanding issues the resident highlighted following his correspondence about the service charge.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. It’s handling and administration of the resident’s service charge payments.
2. It’s complaint handling.