London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202101570)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101570

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 August 2023

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 request for a full breakdown of service charges, and an explanation for the increase in service charges, since 2017/18.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complaint has been raised by the joint leaseholders of a 2 bedroom, second floor flat. They will be referred to in this investigation as ‘the resident’.
The flat was initially purchased by the resident on a shared ownership basis. The resident purchased the lease outright on 29 June 2021.
The landlord is the head leaseholder. The block is managed by a managing agent on behalf of the freeholder.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The lease states that the resident agrees to pay the service charge during the term by equal payments in advance, at the same time, and in the same manner in which the specified rent is payable under the lease.
The landlord’s service charge policy says:
1. Third party managing agents provide services at some estates where the freehold of the blocks of flats is not owned by the landlord. The freeholder is responsible for appointing the managing agent.
2. Where service charges are variable, the landlord assesses the actual costs incurred for the most recent financial year against the previous estimated costs of that year to set the coming year’s charge.
3. If the actual cost exceeds the estimated cost, then the landlord can recover that additional cost from the resident (as long as the relevant documentation is issued to residents within 6 months of the end of the financial year). Conversely, if the actual costs were less than the estimates, then the landlord will refund the difference to the resident.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will make a payment of £10 for a failure to respond to a query within 10 working days; and a failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in its complaints policy.

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of, and response to, the request for a full breakdown of service charges and an explanation for the increase in service charges, since 2017/18. However, the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. This is in line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Nevertheless, this service can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
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) and the complainant would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2021 to query whether they had been overcharged service charges between 2019 and 2021. The resident said that they had been charged “homeowners only management costs”, and as they were not homeowners, they requested a refund of £1114.96.
The landlord responded on 6 April 2021 and explained that the charges related to the managing agent costs, who were responsible for carrying out services and maintaining the common parts of the building and scheme of which the resident’s property formed part of. The landlord said that the homeowner only costs were applicable to homeowners only, not tenanted properties. However, when it allocated the charge, it divided the cost by all properties, and the landlord absorbed the tenants’ share. The landlord explained that, as the resident’s tenancy type was shared ownership, they were liable to contribute towards the managing agent’s homeowner only costs.
On 8 April 2021, the resident asked the landlord to provide the rules for contribution to homeowner only charges as they could not find any information on the landlord’s website. The resident said that they only held a 25% share of the property.
The landlord responded on 19 April 2021 and said that as the resident was not a tenant with a tenancy agreement, but a shared owner with a lease, they were liable to contribute towards the homeowner costs even with 25% ownership of the property. It reiterated that the costs were apportioned to all properties but it absorbed the tenants’ share.
The resident responded on the same day and said that they were questioning whether they were paying 100% of the homeowner costs, even though they only owned a 25% share of the flat, or if they were paying proportionally to the share they held in the property.
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint via the landlord’s website on 20 April 2021. The resident said that the service charge had increased significantly without transparency of the costs or allowing residents to scrutinise the figures. This resident said that they had not received a suitable response from the landlord to resolve the situation. The resident requested transparent documents to show the costs and how they applied, with a full explanation as to why the service costs had increased by 40% each year.
The landlord responded to the resident’s further query of 19 April 2021 on 5 May 2021, and said that the resident was not paying 100% of the service charge. The resident was paying a proportion of the service charge in accordance with the lease. The landlord said that all residents were required to pay a service charge in accordance with their legal agreements.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 May 2021 and said that they had been trying to get clarity on the service charges rules for 2 months without success. The resident said that they would be initiating an investigatory enquiry with the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2021. It said it could confirm that the 2021/22 estimated charges were based on the 2020/21 budget from the managing agent plus a 3.7% uplift. The landlord said that it had estimated at that cost to minimise potential variances after the accounts had been reconciled. The landlord attached a copy of the budget and costs applicable to the resident and reminded the resident that all costs were subject to an account reconciliation and so any over or under spend would be rectified when the accounts were reconciled.
The resident responded on the same day and said that the response did not fully answer the query. The resident explained that the 3.7% uplift did not correlate with the increases that year and was very different from previous years. The resident said that they had seen a 22% increase which was a significant difference. The resident asked the following questions:
1. Why were they paying more than the managing agent increase and for items that they did not have access to such as the car park, and insurance reserves not relating to their block.
2. What the staff costs of £135,000 related to; what the reserve fund was and who determined that amount; and if the fund was not used, did the residents get the money back.
3. Did the landlord check that all the items were still relevant; did the managing agent show validation for the costs; did they declare the yearly spend; and was it scrutinised by the landlord.
4. Did the landlord check whether the managing agent were the most competitive provider for the service.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 July 2021 to request a full and in depth breakdown of the service charge final balance for 2020/21. The resident requested further information as to where the money was going and who dictated the costs, and whether it was the landlord or managing agent.
The landlord sent the resident an expenditure summary for the managing agent costs and supporting documents for the 2020/21 final service charge on 21 July 2021. The resident responded on the same day and said that the increase for 2021/22 based on the final cost was 13%, and based on the estimated amount it was over 20%. This was not the 3.5% that the landlord had referred to previously. The resident asked the landlord to explain the increase and why there was no change in the activities, yet the price had increased much higher than the rate of inflation.
The landlord responded to the resident on 21 July 2021. It said the 2021/22 estimated charges were based on the 2020/21 budget from the managing agent plus a 3.7% uplift of the costs. The landlord provided a table of the total estimated cost to the resident, and the final cost, for the past 5 years, including the variances. It said that it had underestimated the costs in the previous two years, so it had raised the estimated service charge for 2021/22 to minimise the potential variances after account reconciliation.
The landlord further explained that it was not unusual for there to be variances between the amount estimated and actual amount incurred as it set estimated charges before the financial year began and then reconciled the accounts after the financial year ended. It said that the variable service charge balance would vary each year depending on whether it had overestimated or underestimated. The resident would then be issued either a credit or debit against the estimated amount dependent on the actual invoices paid. The landlord said that the overall charge the resident paid would directly reflect the level of service that had been received for that year. The landlord answered the resident’s questions, it said:
1. The 2021/22 figure was an estimated cost. It had used the most recent budget to anticipate the level of invoices that it expected to receive in the 2021/22 financial year. The 3.7% uplift was to account for inflation. It apologised that the incorrect estate breakdown was sent, and it attached the correct estate breakdown for the 2021/22 financial year.
2. The charges referred to were budgeted items and costs that were subject to an account reconciliation. However, if the resident did want to query services being delivered, they should contact the property manager who could contact the managing agent.
3. Staff costs related to the total costs budgeted for the staff employed in the management of the estate.
4. The purpose of the reserve fund was to enable homeowners to spread the cost of major works over a number of years and contributions were set with the aim that there would be little or no shortfall in the balance when major works took place. Reserve fund contributions were on-going as items had a life span and would need to be replaced after a certain number of years.
5. The reserve fund was used because items had a life span and would not be refunded to leaseholders.
6. The most recent budget was subject to account reconciliation by the managing agent. The budgets were scrutinised by the managing agent contract manager.
7. The managing agent did show validation for the costs and they provided the landlord with audited accounts after their financial year had ended.
8. Service delivery queries were managed by the property manager.
The resident responded on the same day and said that the increase for 2021/22 based on the final cost was 13% and based on the estimated amount was over 20%. This was not the 3.5% that the landlord had referred to. The resident asked the landlord to explain this. The resident also asked the landlord to explain why, when there was no change in the activities, the price had increased much higher than the rate of inflation.
On 11 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord said that its system did not show any current complaints, so it would raise a complaint and respond. The resident told the landlord that they had been in contact with this service.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 August 2021. They attached a record of the complaint raised via the website on 20 April 2021, and copies of multiple emails exchanged with the landlord since March 2021.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the resident on 12 August 2021. It said it had raised the complaint and it had also attached its complaints policy which outlined the process and the various stages and escalation points. The landlord said it would go over the case history on its systems together with the information the resident had provided to carry out an investigation and provide the resident with a full response under stage 1 of the complaints process.
The landlord provided the resident with a response to the stage 1 complaint on 2 September 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response and said it had reviewed the budgets set by the managing agent, its estimated and final statements together with the lease agreement and other relevant documentation. It said:
1. The resident’s lease agreement was with the landlord. It set an estimate and reconciled that against the actual costs incurred each year for all variable service charge payers. Its financial year ran from April to March each year, and it provided at least 1 months’ notice of the new estimated charges each year. It had 6 months after the end of the financial year within which to provide the final statements to residents, on or before 30 September each year.
2. It received an estimate each year from the managing agent, and the managing agent provided reconciled accounts at the end of their financial year, which ran from February to January. The managing agents had 6 months to provide their final accounts each year, by 31 July. The managing agent set their estimate each year based on their own contracts and plans for maintenance each year.
3. When setting its estimates, it used the most up to date budget it had on file. If the management company had not issued their budget in time for it to provide the resident with its anticipated costs, it would use the previous year’s budget. It could not include any balancing charges or credits in the final accounts until they were received from the managing agent. This meant there would be a delay in these showing in the reconciliations until the following financial year.
4. The final accounts comprised of its on-account payments for the management company estimate for that year. The complex management arrangement meant that it was often out of sync with the latest estimate or final account issued by the managing agent due to differing financial years. This meant that it would account for the managing agent’s actual expenditure in the following financial year to residents.
5. The managing agent contract manager scrutinised any invoices that were sent by the managing agent and, when necessary, would request further information to support the demands for payment. It could therefore reassure the resident that it was holding the freeholder and their agent to account for the costs imposed.
6. It had reviewed the charges from 2017/18 to the current date. During that time, the managing agent changed on the instructions of the freeholder. The landlord had no say in who was appointed by the freeholder, as it was the freeholder’s right to choose who they appointed to fulfil the lease obligations.
7. The most significant increase came from the managing agent in the 2018/19 budget. The increase was due to a number of services in the various schedules of their budget:
  1. Estate repairs, grounds maintenance, pest control, pump maintenance, legionella test and CWT Maintenance, gutter and drain clearance, and site security guards.
  2. Cleaning, electrical maintenance (emergency lights, etc), electricity, and refuse bin.
8. It was not uncommon to see increases at that stage in a development. When developments were new, components were often still under warranty periods and expenditure on repairs was often not incurred in the early stages.
9. New budgets often did not take into account all services that would be needed, as this was something that could develop over time, such as the need for pest control or bulk waste collection.
10. Some services could increase due to an enhancement of the service, for example the on-site manager cost increased from £61,380 in 2017/18 to £76,300 in 2018/19 due to the number of hours a week which increased from 44 to 55.
11. Typically, estimated charges were set based on the contracts in place for the service and the most recent expenditure incurred. If a new supplier was brought in and their charges were based on a different schedule of rates, that could affect the charges, the standard of service, activities carried out and frequency. If there was a higher than anticipated spend for repairs on a particular item in the past, this would result in an increased provision in the following year(s).
12. In 2019/20, the current managing agent was appointed and the budget would have been based on the information available to them from the previous managing agent. They applied a 3.5% increase that year, which was in line with inflation.
13. For the 2020/21 year, the budget increased by 17%. The increase was due to reserve funds and staff costs. The managing agent felt that it was necessary to increase provision for reserves to ensure that there would be enough in the fund when the time came to use it for major works such as cyclical decorations or component replacements. It had requested further detail on the latest budget from the managing agent, which included details on the increased staffing costs. Once available, it would provide this information to the resident.
14. It had attached the budget for each year from the managing agent, and this included the percentage paid towards each schedule so the resident could see how much of each item in the budget was allocated to their property.
15. The budget only included the schedules which the resident contributed towards. The resident would also contribute towards a reserve fund for all components at the block, as well as any shared on the wider estate. The resident’s share of costs would cover insurance for the block as well as any held for the wider estate areas that were communal.
16. If the resident had concerns with the service being provided, it would need to take these to the managing agent for comment. It worked closely with the managing agent and would report any issues found on regular inspections to them for action. It was sorry for any trouble caused to the resident.
17. Each year, it had 6 months to request supporting information from the managing agent. It would request further and supporting information and documents if it felt that further explanation was required. It had received accounts for the 2019/20 year and did not feel that further explanations were required for that year.
18. It would work with the managing agent to review any issues that arose from the 2020/21 accounts. It would share the accounts when it had accounted for any deficit or credit balance. If the resident had specific concerns with the level of service provided, it could take these to the managing agent.
The resident responded on 12 September 2021 to request that the complaint was escalated to stage 2 for review, as they did not feel satisfied that the response covered the points raised. The resident requested further evidence, estimates, clarification, and justification for numerous processes and policies relating to the calculation of service charges and budgets.
On 22 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord by email to chase an acknowledgement to the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 16 December 2021, this service contacted the landlord as the resident had not received a response to the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s records show that it held a meeting in January 2022 with the managing agent to obtain answers to the resident’s queries. The managing agent said that they were happy to work with a representative of each block going forward.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It said that in its stage one decision, the resident’s concerns in relation to the increase of the managing agent charges from 2017/18 to date were clarified. Various documents were reviewed and it was determined that the most significant increase came from the managing agent in the 2018/19 budget. The increase over the previous year was due to various services that were undertaken such as estate repairs; grounds maintenance; pest control; pump maintenance; legionella test; gutter and drain clearance; site security guards; block cleaning; electrical maintenance (emergency lights, etc); electricity; and refuse bins. The landlord said:
1. It was not uncommon to see increases in the costs associated with a development over time. The managing agents took over in 2019/20 and it had confirmed that their budget would have been based on the information available from the previous managing agent.
2. The budgets for each year from the managing agent had been provided to the resident on 2 September 2021 as requested.
3. It was bound in the arrangement by the lease, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The lease agreement dated 23 January 2015 set out in clause 7 how the service charge was to be calculated. The lease also provided that the service charge was to be made up of the costs incidental to the performance of the landlord’s covenants.
4. Clause 5.2 of the landlord’s covenants confirmed that this related to all monies due under the head lease between the landlord and the freeholder, subject to clause 5.3, and to payment by the leaseholder of the specified rent and service charge.
5. Clause 3.28 of the resident’s lease said that they must also observe and perform the covenants and conditions contained in the head lease. These confirmed the freeholder’s responsibility to maintain the building and wider estate, and that the leaseholder was obligated under the head lease to pay their proportion of those costs incurred in the freeholder doing so.
6. The managing agent (or any other landlord) was not obligated to seek approval or votes on their budgets or expenditure. The freeholder’s responsibility to provide services was outlined in the head lease agreement and in the subsequent lease agreement with the resident. The leases were clear that the leaseholder must pay a service charge to cover the cost of their responsibilities.
7. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 afforded protection for leaseholders and shared owners, and the costs incurred and passed on must be both reasonable, and reasonably incurred. It did not believe that any of the charges would not comply with the requirement, but it would be for an independent panel to determine at the First Tier Tribunal if the resident did not agree.
8. The managing agent had been appointed by the freeholder and there was no simple process to replace or remove them from the role. There was a legal process to obtain the ‘Right to Manage the block, however the resident should seek independent legal advice on the process.
9. The management company were contracted to perform all the duties to meet the lease obligations. There was no conflict of interest. Freeholders could perform the duties themselves or have a subsidiary of their company act on their behalf.
10. In line with the legislation, leaseholders had 6 months from the date of any final reconciliation being issued to request further and supporting information. As the relevant timeframe had passed for all years prior to 2020/21, it was not able to provide any further detailed information than had been previously supplied.
11. To make a formal request to inspect the documents associated with the 2020/21 final account, the resident was required to do so in writing. The documents would consist of the invoices it had paid to the management company for the payments on account of their budget, and not the invoices behind any final charges for that year.
12. It had met with representatives of the managing agent that month to seek clarity on how it could pursue more involvement from its residents. The managing agent said that they would be happy to work with a nominated representative from each of the blocks directly, which would include attendance at their annual general meeting. If the resident wanted to nominate a representative, the property manager had further details.
13. The managing agent had confirmed that they were in the process of finalising the 2020/21 accounts. The service charge team would provide the relevant information to the resident. If the resident wanted to make a formal request, they may grant the facility to inspect the supporting documents and invoices. There was no legal obligation to provide the resident with hard copies, they were only legally obliged to make the information available to the landlord as their leaseholder.
14. The managing agent agreed that they would allow the facility to inspect to one nominated resident, but this would not be extended to all customers. The facility would be made available in the office on site by a pre-arranged appointment.
15. It apologised for the delay in actioning and offering a response to the stage two complaint in line with its procedure which was due to staff changes within the team. In recognition of the service failure, it awarded £100 compensation to apologise for the delays.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for a full breakdown of service charges, and an explanation for the increase in service charges, since 2017/18

The resident pays a service charge for services such as estate and block services which, under legislation including the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, must be reasonably incurred and be of a reasonable standard. The landlord should therefore review any concerns raised about the delivery and quality of these services and take appropriate action to address any identified issues.
The resident first contacted the landlord on 1 April 2021 to query the ‘homeowners only management costs’ element of the service charge. The landlord responded on 6 April 2021 and explained what the costs were for and why the resident had been charged for the costs. This was a reasonable response to the issues raised by the resident.
The resident raised further queries in relation to the costs on 8 April 2021 and whether they were applicable to the resident given their ownership status. The landlord responded on 19 April 2021. When the resident asked for further clarification in relation to the apportionment of the charges, it should have been clear to the landlord that a further, more detailed investigation and response was required. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange to discuss the issues raised directly with the resident to fully understand their concerns, rather than continue to send emails back and forth.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2021 did not address the resident’s specific concerns. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord sought to clarify the resident’s complaint prior to responding, which was unreasonable and would likely have caused the resident frustration. It would have been reasonable and more efficient for the landlord to seek to understand the specific concerns by providing the resident with an opportunity to supply further detail prior to its response.
The landlord did not provide any further explanation even though the resident replied to the stage 1 response and said that it had not fully answered their queries – this was unreasonable. The resident had to chase the landlord on 7 July 2021 to request a full and in depth breakdown of the service charge.
The landlord did send the resident an expenditure summary for the ‘homeowner only’ costs, supporting documents, and a detailed response on 21 July 2021. This was a reasonable response and provided specific answers to each of the resident’s questions. However, as the response still failed to satisfy the resident, the landlord should have considered signposting them to the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) for free and independent legal advice at this point.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for further information on 21 July 2021 and the resident had to contact the landlord again on 11 August 2021. This was unreasonable and only contributed to the delays in dealing with the matter.
The landlord’s second stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were detailed and clear, particularly given that service charges can be complex and challenging to explain. The landlord summarised matters; provided details of relevant legislation and relevant clauses of the lease; and offered further opportunity for the resident to progress matters directly with the managing agent. The landlord also provided the resident with contact details for the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) in the stage 1 response and made reference to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in the stage 2 response. The landlord failed, however, to acknowledge the communication failures or unreasonable delays or provide any redress for these.
In summary, the course of events was protracted and the landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate at times. The landlord failed to clarify the extent of the resident’s concerns at an early stage and missed the opportunity to signpost the resident to the Leasehold Advisory Service when it was clear that their requests were complex.

The associated complaint

There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 20 April 2021. Although the response was provided within the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, it was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The response did not state the complaint stage or definition or provide details of how the resident could escalate the matter to stage two if they were not satisfied with the answer.
When the resident informed the landlord that the response did not fully answer the query on 5 May 2021, the landlord should have considered escalating the complaint to stage two. At the very least, the landlord should have contacted the resident for clarification and confirmation that they intended to escalate the complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident or took any action in relation to escalating the complaint, which is unreasonable.
When the resident requested that the landlord escalate the complaint on 11 August 2021 the landlord failed to recognise that they had made a stage 1 complaint on 20 April 2021 about the same issues, and that they had previously expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome. Given that there had already been a significant delay, it was therefore unreasonable of the landlord to log the resident’s complaint as a new stage 1 complaint. It is unclear as to why the landlord did this and it clearly contributed to the overall delay in the resident receiving the final stage two response.
This failure is further evidenced on 12 August 2021 when the resident sent the landlord a copy of the complaint previously raised via the website on 20 April 2021, and copies of multiple emails exchanged with the landlord since March 2021. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord reviewed this information to make an informed decision to log the complaint at stage 1. However, the absence of such evidence would suggest that the landlord did not consider the resident’s information, and therefore failed to recognise that their concerns had been ongoing for some time.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 12 September 2021. However, the landlord did not provide a response until 31 January 2022. This was over 4 months from the original date of the escalation request and was significantly outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaints policy of 20 working days. The resident had to contact this service to obtain a stage 2 response from the landlord, which was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the complaint was complex and was likely to require more time than the 20 days specified within the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated this to the resident or agreed a specific extension period with them. This was unreasonable and not in line with the Code which states, “If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties”.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord did recognise and acknowledge the delay in providing the resident with a stage 2 response. The landlord apologised for the delay and awarded £100 compensation. However, this amount fails to fully recognise the significant delays, the poor communication, and the level of distress and inconvenience that the situation would have caused the resident.
In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which would have caused the resident additional time and trouble, frustration and distress. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy, which resulted in significant delays. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not provide reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a full breakdown of service charges, and an explanation for the increase in service charges, since 2017/18.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to clarify the resident’s issues adequately when they first raised concerns and did not signpost the resident to the Leasehold Advisory Service at an early stage. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate and, at times, it failed to respond to contact from the resident. Overall, this resulted in long and unreasonable delays in the resident obtaining information requested about the breakdown of, and justifications for, service charges.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and it departed significantly from the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two and opened a second stage one complaint about the same issues. This caused significant delays and would have been confusing for the resident. The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its complaint handling failures does not provide adequate redress for these failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £400 (this is inclusive of the offer of £100 previously made) made up of:
1. £150 in recognition of distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a full breakdown of service charges, and an explanation for the increase in service charges, since 2017/18.
2. £250 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
Within eight weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Review its process for dealing with, and responding to, queries relating to service charges to ensure that residents receive a timely and adequate response, and to ensure residents are signposted to relevant support and advisory services at an early stage.
2. The landlord should provide this service with evidence of the review and improvements made.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.