Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (202120840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120840

Poole Housing Partnership Ltd

26 July 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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of major works and its provision of information regarding the service charge accounts.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a one bedroom, ground floor flat.  The building is owned by the landlord and forms part of a small estate.
3. The resident complained that she had difficulties getting a response from the service charge team. Her letter of complaint dated 20 September 2021 states that she had been trying to find details of the reactive repairs charged to the latest accounts, but her queries had been ignored. She also asked about the outstanding amount on her account and queried whether this related to the communal decorative. If so, she explained that she disputed the charge as she had not received a section 20 consultation notice. In addition, she stated that the communal decorative works had not been completed satisfactorily. Again, she stated she had raised this on a number of occasions but was yet to receive a response.
4. The landlord sent its response at stage one of the complaints procedure on 8 October 2021, having warned the resident that this was taking longer than usual.  It addressed the following:
   1. Communications with staff – the letter found that there were notes of telephone conversations indicating that staff had been in touch with the resident. However, the complaint was partially upheld as these did not fully address all the concerns raised.
   2. Reactive repairs – the letter set out that reactive repair’s charges had been estimated at £297.55 for the financial year 2020-21 and £275.44 for the financial year 2021-22.  The landlord explained that these were estimates of the likely charges.  The actual repair costs for the year 2020-2021 were being finalized and a breakdown would be provided shortly.  The actual costs for 2021-2022 would be provided in October 2022. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
   3. Outstanding amount – the letter confirmed that there was a charge of £316.41 and that this related to internal decoration work for the block. It stated that a section 20 notice advising of the works was sent on 17 January 2019 with an estimated cost of £372.34. When the final value was known this was recalculated and the actual cost apportioned to residents. The letter stated the concerns raised previously regarding the work had been raised with the maintenance team who, it believed, had dealt with the matters at the time raised.
5. The landlord apologised for the communication failings and advised that this would be raised with the team in question.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2021 and requested that the complaint be escalated. She did not accept that a section 20 notice had been sent out prior to the works, but rather that it had been sent after the works were completed. She raised again her concerns regarding the works, in that the colour of the rear door did not match the paintwork of the other doors.  Further she complained that she had still not received the details of the actual reactive repairs.
7. The landlord sent its final decision on 25 November 2021 having spoken to the resident by telephone on 18 November 2021. This explained that the section 20 notice was dated 17 January 2019, the date that it was sent. It explained that a copy had been reprinted and, as the date had autocompleted on its internal system, this had been amended to reflect the date of posting. The landlord accepted that the resident may not have received the notice if it had been lost in the post but stated that it had no control over this.  It insisted that it had been sent as dated.
8. In relation to the colour of the door, the landlord believed that this had been chosen by the resident and the colour selected from a paint colour chart. The work had been inspected and the decoration on both the front and rear doors was found to be satisfactory and in keeping with the general décor of the communal areas.
9. In relation to the reactive repairs the letter again explained the time for receiving details of works. It explained that the work to confirm the actual costs for the year 2019/20 was almost complete and the details would be sent shortly. The current year actual repair list was not due until October 2022.
10. Whilst not accepting that there had been any service failure, in an attempt to resolve the complaint, the landlord offered to reduce the charge for the internal decoration to £250. This was the amount that it was entitled to charge leaseholders for works without requiring a consultation.
11. The actual costs for the reactive repairs in 2019/20 were sent to the resident on 17 December 2021.
12. The resident disputes she selected the colour for the communal rear door. She believes this selection related to her front door. The resident has also confirmed that she asked the landlord for a further copy of the reactive repairs details and these have not have been received.

Assessment and findings

Scope

13. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised a number of concerns regarding her ongoing relationship with the landlord. These concerned the following:
    1. Difficulties in gaining responses regarding service charge queries.
    2. Repairing responsibility for window glazing.
    3. Landlords handling of repairs to a down pipe and communal aerial.
    4. That there has been a lack of response to concerns raised about neighbours.
14. These matters were not raised as part of the original complaint and the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond via its complaint’s procedure. These matters have not therefore been considered as part of this investigation.

Assessment

15. The lease agreement sets out the resident’s obligation to pay the service charge at section 2(3). Section 5.1 sets out the corresponding obligation on the landlord and the extent of the services provided. This includes at 5.1(5) an obligation “as often as may reasonably be necessary to paint in a good and workmanlike manner with two coats of good quality paint all outside parts of the Building usually painted and also internal common parts of the Building usually painted.”
16. The third schedule sets out that the landlord shall provide an estimate of the expected annual charges prior to each year and that the resident will make quarterly payments in advance towards these costs.
17. The lease also creates an obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and of the building and to make good any defect affecting that structure (5.1 (2)).
18. The lease therefore intends that the landlord maintains the communal decorations and keeps the flat and building in repair. The cost of these work is recovered via the service charge. The landlord was therefore entitled to recover the cost of the communal decorations and repairs under the terms of the lease.
19. In addition to the terms of the lease, the landlord must also comply with the legal requirements of s.151 Common and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the Act) which introduced requirements for consulting leaseholders.  The Act replaced the previous consultation procedure in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 although the old name ‘section 20’ is still commonly used.
20. The Act sets out the precise procedures that the landlord must follow for qualifying work such as the communal decoration. Although the main purpose of the consultation process is to gather the views of leaseholders on the landlord’s proposals, it also limits the landlord’s ability to recover costs if it does not follow the correct procedure. If the landlord fails to carry out the full consultation process in the correct way it cannot collect or recover service charges above the level of the minimum amounts set by law, which is £250 for work to the building. The same will apply if the landlord fails to consult its leaseholders.
21. In this instance the landlord has investigated the complaint and accepted that there were some communication failings. Staff have been made aware that this was not an acceptable standard of service.
22. Although the landlord did not uphold the other elements of the complaint, it did take steps to address the concerns raised by the resident through its complaint handling. Although it did not agree that it was at fault, the landlord offered to decrease the charge to her for the internal decorations to the level it would have been entitled to charge had there been no consultation. This was a reasonable offer that sought to resolve the dispute. In effect, the offer reduces the cost of the work to the extent that the resident was not paying for the disputed decoration of the door. Should the landlord have failed to properly consult i.e., by not sending the original estimate, this is the amount it would be entitled to recover from its leaseholders.
23. The landlord has provided details of the repair works, albeit these were slightly outside of its promised timescale. Given that the lease anticipates quarterly payments in advance based upon the service charge estimates, there was minimal detriment to the resident by this late provision.
24. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has dealt with this complaint fairly.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of major works and its provision of information regarding the service charge accounts satisfactorily.

Reasons

26. The landlord’s offer regarding the outstanding costs seeks to put the resident in the position she would have been in had the events taken place as she described. This offer limits the resident’s contribution to the communal decoration to £250 which, in effect, reduces her contribution towards the disputed decoration of the rear door.

Recommendations

27. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Confirm that it has reduced the resident’s charges related to the section 20 notice in January 2019 from £316.41 to £250.
    2. Review its contact with the resident and ensure that it has systems in place to ensure any queries from leaseholders are responded to within a reasonable timescale and that it maintains an adequate audit trail of both queries and responses.
    3. Review its provision of information to leaseholders, and in particular the information provided regarding repair expenditure to ensure that leaseholders are kept up to date.
    4. Contact the resident to ascertain whether she has any ongoing concerns that need to be considered via its complaints process.
    5. Send the resident a copy of its reactive repairs estimated charges letters for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.
    6. Send the resident a copy of its reactive repairs actual charges letters for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 (if available).