The Guinness Partnership Limited — case 202425123

Decision Case ID 202425123 Decision type Investigation Landlord The Guinness Partnership Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident lives at a block located near another block managed by the landlord. She complained about the landlord’s handling of multiple communal services at her block, access to her block by residents from the other block, and her ventilation system not functioning. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of a tree causing damage to her car.

Reports of a lack of communal bush maintenance. Reports of issues with the bin and bike storage areas. Reports of CCTV issues. Reports of residents from another block accessing communal areas, and using the communal water supply. Reports of window cleaning issues. Reports of communal utility cupboard lock issues. Reports of a non-functioning ventilation system. Concerns about service charges and its management of the service charge account. Complaint. Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a tree causing damage to her car.

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of communal bush maintenance. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the bin and bike storage areas. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of CCTV issues. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of residents from another block accessing communal areas, and using the communal water supply There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of window cleaning issues.

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of communal utility cupboard lock issues. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a non-functioning ventilation system. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about service charges and its management of the service charge account. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons Reports of a tree causing damage to her car The landlord is not required to provide the solutions the resident sought, and it was positive to offer to cut the tree once a year. Reports of a lack of communal bush maintenance The landlord’s apology, compensation, action to arrange for the bushes to be cut, and commitment to improve its service, was a reasonable response to the evidenced service issues and impact Reports of issues with the bin and bike storage areas The landlord acted reasonably in line with what we would expect for the issues.

Its apology and compensation was a reasonable remedy for any evidenced service issues and impact. Reports of CCTV issues The landlord was appropriately responsive when it has become aware of CCTV issues in the complaint timeframe. Reports of residents from another block accessing communal areas, and using the communal water supply The landlord resolved the issue with the water supply in a timely manner, and it offered reasonable compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused by the access issues and delays resolving this issue.

Reports of window cleaning issues The landlord responded about window cleaning reasonably and in line with the lease. Reports of communal utility cupboard lock issues The landlord’s apology, offer of some compensation for the delays, and action to provide a key to the resident, reasonably addressed the evidenced service issues and impact Reports of a non-functioning ventilation system The landlord reasonably responded and met its commitments in the complaint we investigated, and it has responded to separate complaints about the issue.

Concerns about service charges and its management of the service charge account The landlord’s response for the complaint we have investigated was reasonable. Its approach to service charges and reconciliation of these have been in line with the lease. It met its commitments in the complaint to review service charges and make appropriate adjustments. It has responded to separate complaints about the issues. Complaint It is unclear that the landlord provided a stage 1 acknowledgement, however it otherwise handled the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord is recommended to re-offer compensation it has offered, including the £100 for the complaint and the £250 for the access issues, if it has not paid these.

The landlord is recommended to review the circumstances in which the other resident’s carport was installed. It is then recommended to provide some reassurance to the resident that she has not been treated differently to the other resident. The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to consider her concerns that a resident from another block still has 1 fob, and that a resident from another block still accesses communal areas, and update her about its current position on these.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 28 August 2024 The resident made a complaint: She raised dissatisfaction that nothing had been done about tree sap dropping onto her car, and said she wanted a solution for this, such as a cover similar to one another resident had. She raised dissatisfaction with the height of communal bushes. She raised dissatisfaction about fly–tipping and refuse issues in the bin store, and storage of items in the bike store. She raised dissatisfaction that residents from another block had access to her communal areas, and were using her block’s communal water supply to wash cars.

She raised dissatisfaction that window cleaning was not done but she was being charged for this in her service charges. She raised dissatisfaction that she did not have access to communal utility cupboards. She raised dissatisfaction that the ventilation system had not worked in her flat since she bought it. She raised dissatisfaction that the CCTV system had never worked but she was being charged for this in her service charges. She raised dissatisfaction with the service charges and said she wanted refunds for the issues, such as residents from another block using the communal areas and water supply, and window cleaning not being done.

18 September 2024 The landlord responded at stage 1: It said it and the local authority were unable to take action about a tree whose sap was falling on the resident’s car. It said it did not own it and there were no grounds to take action such as cut it back. It also said it was unable to install a pagoda itself. It said the resident could submit a request to install one for it to consider and she could also consider purchasing a car cover. It noted that its estates team had confirmed grounds maintenance was done on 12 August 2024, and a report confirmed bushes had been trimmed back.

It apologised for delays attending the grounds maintenance. It explained resourcing issues had affected this, and the estates team were seeking to address this through recruitment. It noted it had taken action to remove some metal cages considered to have encouraged fly–tipping in the bin area, order more bins, and written to residents to discourage incorrect disposal of items. It said it could order more bins but it intended to initially monitor the situation. It said its estates team would continue to remove fly–tipping monthly but invited the resident to let it know if there were any items that needed to be collected sooner, or if she became aware of incorrectly disposed items that had evidence about the perpetrators, so this could be followed up.

It noted it had fitted a lock on the communal water tap on 20 June 2024 so that only its cleaners had access to this. It said that as the issue was first reported that financial year, it would look to adjust the service charge at the end of the financial year, and any adjustments would be reflected in the September 2025 service charge bill. It said that in June 2024 it had instructed for the fob system to be changed so that 2 residents at another block could no longer access the resident’s communal area.

It said a quote had been requested, and it had followed up on this, but it apologised for the delays since June 2024. It said it had recently procured a new window cleaning service and the windows would be cleaned on 19 September 2024. It noted that the resident wanted it to be removed from the service charge, but it said it had obligations under the lease to keep the block clean. It noted it had arranged for the bike area to be cleared earlier in the year of all items other than bikes, and written to residents to say that only bikes should be stored in the area.

It said that any incorrectly stored items would be managed in line with its communal areas policy and staff would visit within the next 2 weeks to inspect the area. It noted that operatives attended on 16 July 2024 and identified that the communal utility cupboard locks needed replacement. It said it was arranging for this to be done and for keys to be provided. It apologised that it had delayed in arranging the follow-on works. It noted that there had been several visits to try to repair the resident’s ventilation system, but these had been unsuccessful, so it had arranged for this to be replaced.

It said that the resident would not be charged for the unsuccessful visits, only for the replacement of the new unit. It said it had scheduled an appointment on 19 September 2024 in relation to this. It noted that contractors said the CCTV was faulty and needed to be replaced when they attempted to retrieve footage on 3 July 2024. It noted the upgrade was completed on 19 July 2024. It said that CCTV had worked prior to this, and it had retrieved CCTV footage in May 2023 and replaced a hard drive in March 2024.

It said the actual charges for 2023 to 2024 were currently being finalised and would be issued in September 2024. It said that any adjustments needed for the current financial year would be reflected in the resident’s September 2025 service charge bill. It also said that the resident would be reimbursed for any services not provided, and noted that she was reimbursed £205.34 in the September 2023 service charge bill. 18 September 2024 The resident escalated her complaint. She said: She raised dissatisfaction with having the tree sap issue and asked the landlord to find a solution.

She raised dissatisfaction with the response about grounds maintenance and asked to be compensated for the delays and having to chase about the issue. She raised dissatisfaction with the actions the landlord had taken for issues with the bin area, the length of time these had taken, and the chasing she had had to do. She raised dissatisfaction that the residents from the other block had been given access in the first place and queried who was going to pay for the fob system to be changed.

22 October 2024 The landlord responded at stage 2: It restated its stage 1 position that it was unable to cut the tree affecting the resident’s car, as it was not its responsibility or dangerous. It said it had held a number of internal meetings to discuss service charge adjustments, and the service charge team would contact the resident separately about these by the end of the month. It noted the CCTV system was faulty in March 2024 and it had changed the hard drive. It restated that a second fault was then identified in July 2024 and the system was upgraded the same month.

It said repair of the communal utility cupboard locks had been completed on 16 October 2024. It said it had completed inspections of the bike storage area, would continue to monitor common areas in line with its policy, and remove any items where necessary. It said it had investigated the resident’s ventilation and intended to replace this, as a repair was not possible. It said this was scheduled for 28 October 2024 and it would not charge for this. It said it was seeking to work with residents to resolve the access issue without having to replace the fob system.

It said it would monitor progress of the issues in the complaint and progress them. It acknowledged that the resident had to chase it for answers, reassured her that there had been a number of internal meetings to obtain these, and offered her £100 for the delays. 1 November 2024 The landlord provided a follow up to its stage 2: It apologised about issues with an appointment for the ventilation and noted that a further appointment had been scheduled for 9 November 2024. It said the request for retrieving the fobs from the non-residents was being progressed by the resident’s new housing officer.

It said it had internally discussed suggestion the resident had made about fly–tipping and these were not viable. It said that when the new housing officer became established and familiar with the estate and its residents, they could effectively enforce matters, which was the most appropriate and constructive solution. It said staff would contact the local authority about bins not being emptied properly, the emptying of a glass bin, and whether the refuse collectors needed a fob for access.

It said it had mailed the resident a communal utility cupboards key. It restated that it could not install a cover over the resident’s car parking space as this was not within its capacity or scope. It said that after complaints that had been made, it was reviewing service charges, making adjustments and processing compensation for residents affected by the issues raised. 6 November 2024 The landlord provided a further follow up to its stage 2: It said fobs could not be re-programmed and it would have to change the entire system, which would be expensive and disproportionate, so it had asked for the 2 residents to be contacted to obtain their fobs.

It acknowledged and apologised that there had been delays for this issue. It said that a senior manager had confirmed ventilation system works would not be charged back to leaseholders. It noted an appointment was scheduled for 9 November 2024 and said if this was delayed or cancelled, it would issue the work to another contractor. It said it had reviewed the resident’s request to re-allocate charges to include the residents from the other block to recognise they had accessed communal areas.

It noted the resident had been told it had re-allocated charges where there was a clear distinction between the block and the estate, but it was not feasible to re-allocate other charges based on extra wear and tear that may have occurred. It acknowledged ongoing concerns will have caused frustration and said it would offer a goodwill payment to all residents. In a separate letter the same day, it offered £250 for the inconvenience caused by non-residents using the communal area to access the bin store.

It confirmed that if further bins were ordered these would be re-chargeable. It said it would discuss how residents wanted to proceed with this at a residents’ meeting. It noted it had confirmed it could not install a car cover, but the resident could submit an application to install one for it to review. It noted it had confirmed it had posted communal utility cupboard keys to the resident. It said window cleaning had not been carried out in the current financial year, but had been in the last financial year, which charges in the 2023 to 2024 service charge bill reflected.

It said any services not carried out in the current financial year would be credited back to the resident in September 2025. It noted that the resident said the cost of window cleaning had been almost £2,000. It clarified that there were 4 cleans in 2023 to 2024. It said the cost per clean was £23.99 and the year’s contribution for each household had been £19.19. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, said bills were getting higher and higher, said she was paying for services she was not receiving, and said she was having to constantly chase the landlord about this.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The resident’s reports of a tree causing damage to her car Finding No maladministration The resident complained about the landlord’s lack of action for a tree causing damage to her car.

She said she wanted a solution, such as a cover similar to a free-standing carport that another resident is understood to have. The landlord’s complaint responses said that it and the local authority had no grounds to take action such as cut it back. It said that installation of a pagoda was not in its scope or remit, but the resident could submit an application to install one herself, for it to consider. It said that the resident could consider purchasing a car cover. It later said in February 2025 correspondence to an MP that it could trim the tree once a year, if the resident confirmed when she would like this.

It said it would charge for the cost in the service charges. The evidence shows that over 2 years before the resident’s complaint, she made reports about sap dropping onto the resident’s car. The landlord initially raised some tree works, but then cancelled these as the tree was not on its property. The landlord later emailed the resident in July 2024 in response to an enquiry it is understood she made around then. It said it was unable to cut the tree back. It did not own the land it was on.

The local authority had a policy of not cutting down or back healthy trees. The tree was not diseased or dangerous. It suggested that the resident use a car cover during the months the sap was an issue. We understand that the resident will be frustrated by the issue and the inconvenience it causes. However, it is not clear from the landlord’s policies and the lease that the landlord has any specific obligation to maintain the tree, prevent material falling from it onto the resident’s car, or provide solutions the resident seeks at its own expense.

The landlord’s response was reasonably timely and proportionate to reports in the complaint timeframe and its evident obligations. It was later positive to offer to cut the tree once a year. The resident has raised dissatisfaction that another resident has a carport type structure.Our focus is on the landlord’s obligations in its policies and the lease to the resident, not on the circumstances in which the other resident’s carport was erected. While this is the case, the landlord is recommended to review the circumstances in which the other resident’s carport was installed.

It is then recommended to provide some reassurance to the resident that she has not been treated differently to the other resident. Complaint The resident’s concerns of a lack of communal bush maintenance Finding Reasonable redress The resident complained about the lack of cutting back of communal bushes. The landlord’s complaint response noted that the bushes had been cut on 12 August 2024, apologised for the delays, and said it was seeking to address these through recruitment.

It also awarded a total of £100 to recognise delays and the time and trouble the resident had gone to. The evidence shows that on 6 June 2024, the resident reported that operatives who had recently cut bushes in front of the block had not gone inside the car park and cut bushes around a fence which had grown over six feet. The same day, the landlord confirmed it had reported the issue to its estates team. The bushes were subsequently cut in mid-August 2024. The landlord later assessed the ground maintenance in October 2024 and found this to be satisfactory.

We understand that the resident will have been frustrated by some areas not being cut back, having to chase about this, and the 2 months this eventually took. We also understand her concerns about getting value for money for the grounds maintenance. However, the landlord’s apology, compensation, action to arrange for the bushes to be cut, and commitment to improve its service, was reasonably proportionate to the evidenced service issues and impact. Complaint The resident’s reports of issues with the bin and bike storage areas Finding Reasonable redress The evidence shows that in the complaint timeframe, the resident has reported various issues with the bin and bike storage areas.

This included issues with refuse collections, fly-tipping, the number of waste and recycling bins, and the bike storage area being used to store other items. The resident then complained about the landlord’s handling of the issues, delays with actions such as replacement of bins, and her disagreement with actions such as the removal of the metal railings. The landlord’s complaint responses noted it had taken actions for the issues, which included removing metal cages that encouraged fly-tipping, ordering more bins, and writing to residents.

It made commitments to continue to remove fly-tipping monthly, follow up reports of items with identifying information about the perpetrators, and monitor the estate. It also awarded a total of £100 to recognise delays and the time and trouble the resident had gone to. The evidence reflects the landlord’s responses and shows it took a number of actions in the complaint timeframe. It ordered further bins from the local authority. It held meetings with residents. It installed signage.

It wrote to residents about removal of items in bike storage areas. It removed metal railings in the bin store that it believed encouraged fly-tipping. It arranged for removal of fly-tipping. It resolved an issue with a recycling bin being locked. It carried out multiple site visits. We understand the resident has been frustrated by issues repeating, how long some actions took, and the impact on the condition of the estate. She also disagreed with some actions such as the removal of the metal railings.

However, the landlord acted reasonably in line with what we would expect.It is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff when making decisions about issues such as the removal of the metal railings. It sought to be responsive to reports,worked with residents, and worked with other agencies such as the local authority.It recognised delays and offered compensation to recognise this. It met its complaint response commitment to visit.This was reasonably in line with its obligations and policies, andproportionate to the evidenced service issues and impact.

Complaint The resident’s reports of CCTV issues Finding No maladministration The resident complained that the CCTV system never worked. The landlord’s complaint responses said it had worked, although it noted occasions where it had completed repairs after faults were identified. The evidence shows that after operatives attended to download footage from the CCTV system in December 2022, a fault was identified, and the CCTV recorder and hard drive were replaced in January 2023.

The evidence then shows that after operatives attended to download footage from the CCTV system on 27 February 2024, they experienced issues, and recommended a hard drive replacement. This was completed on 26 March 2024. Following this, after operatives attended to download footage from the CCTV system on 4 July 2024, they experienced issues, and recommended a CCTV system upgrade. This was completed on 19 July 2024. On 23 August 2024, operatives attended to download footage and completed this successfully.

The resident may be frustrated that the CCTV system required 3 repairs between January 2023 and July 2024, and was non-functional on some occasions when footage was requested. However, the landlord has evidently been responsive whenever it has become aware of CCTV issues. It has completed any recommended works in reasonable timescales and reasonably in line with its policies. Its response was proportionate to the evidenced service issues and impact in the complaint timeframe.

Complaint The resident’s reports of residents from another block accessing communal areas, and using the communal water supply Finding Reasonable redress The resident complained that residents from another block on the estate could access her communal areas, such as her main entrance, and were using the communal water supply. The landlord’s complaint responses noted it had subsequently fitted a lock on the communal water tap so that only its cleaners had access to this. Its September 2024 stage 1 response initially said it had requested a quote to change the fob system, so 2 residents at another block no longer had access, and had chased this.

Its October 2024 stage 2 response then said that changing the fob system would be too expensive, so it was working to retrieve the fobs. In a November 2024 follow-up, it noted it was paying all residents a £250 goodwill gesture to recognise the inconvenience caused by the issue. The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns from mid-January 2024 that a resident from another block had a fob for her block, and was using her block to access the communal bin area which the 2 blocks share.

The landlord internally discussed this and later raised a works order in June 2024 to re-programme the fob system. The same month, its contractor said the fob system would need to be replaced. The landlord requested a quote for this and, after chasing several times, was provided this in early October 2024 The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns around late May 2024 that a resident from another block was using the communal water to wash their car. The evidence shows that the landlord fitted a lock on the tap around 20 June 2024.

The landlord shows that it resolved the communal water issue in a reasonably timely manner and in line with its repairs policies. It also shows that it sought to progress the fob issue and some lengthy delays were due to delays from the contractor in supplying a quote. The landlord was reasonable to decide not to proceed with the quote, and it made commitments to work to retrieve the fobs from the 2 residents from the other block. The resident confirms that 1 fob was retrieved which shows the landlord sought to meet its commitment.

We understand that the resident was frustrated by the issues and particularly the length of time the landlord was taking to resolve the access issue. The landlord sought to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues by offering a £250 goodwill gesture to all residents at her block. This was reasonably proportionate to the evidenced service issues and impact. While the above is the case, it is noted that the resident says a resident from another block still has 1 fob, and she continues to have concerns about access to her communal areas by a resident from another block.

The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to consider her concerns and update her about its current position on them. Complaint The resident’s reports of window cleaning issues Finding No maladministration The resident complained that window cleaning was not happening despite the landlord charging her for this in the service charge. The landlord’s September 2024 stage 1 response said it had recently procured a new window cleaning service and the windows would be cleaned in September 2024.

Its November 2024 follow-up explained that window cleaning was done in the previous financial year, and any services not carried out in the current financial year would be credited back to the resident in September 2025. The evidence shows that some window cleaning was carried out between April 2023 to March 2024, which the actual service charge bill for this period reflected. The estimated service charge bill for April 2024 to March 2025 estimated that window cleaning may be done in that period, and so was included in the charges the resident was asked to pay.

The evidence then shows that the landlord arranged the September 2024 window cleaning, however it is understood there was a limited desire by residents at the resident’s block for window cleaning to be done, and this was a one-off. The evidence also shows that the lease obligates the resident to pay towards the costs the landlord estimates may be incurred in the following financial year. It later reconciles the estimated and actual costs, which results in any differences being settled.

This includes credits to the resident in the event of an overpayment. The landlord confirmed this would happen in the case of service charges for window cleaning. We understand that the resident was frustrated with paying for a service she generally did not receive. However, the landlord’s response was reasonable on the evidence. It took action to arrange a window cleaning, which was reasonable given she complained this was not being done. It then responded in line with the lease for how she would be refunded for not generally receiving the window cleaning service in that billing period.

Complaint The resident’s reports of communal utility cupboard lock issues Finding Reasonable redress The resident complained that she did not have a key for communal utility cupboards. She raised concerns that this meant she was unable to take readings, and did not have access in the event of an emergency such as a leak. The landlord’s September 2024 stage 1 response noted that operatives had identified that the locks needed replacement in mid-July 2024. It apologised for the delay in arranging follow-on works and said it was arranging for them to be done and keys provided.

The October 2024 stage 2 response confirmed the works had been completed in mid-October 2024, and it awarded a total of £100 to recognise delays and the time and trouble the resident had gone to.Its early November 2024 follow-up confirmed it had posted a key to the resident. The evidence shows that in July 2024, works were completed to replace communal utility cupboard door locks. The evidence then shows that after the resident’s complaint, a further works order was raised in late September 2024 for the locks, and this was completed in mid-October 2024.

The landlord’s response comes across as slightly unclear, as while it said it had delayed in locks works, the evidence suggests a repair to replace the locks was raised and completed in July 2024. The resident also did not raise an issue with the locks themselves, and her main concerns was that she did not have a key. We understand she may have been frustrated by this, the landlord’s handling, and not having access to the cupboard for a period in order to provide readings to a utility supplier.

However, the landlord’s response to apologise and offer some compensation for the delays, and action to provide a key to the resident, was overall proportionate to the evidenced service issues and impact. Complaint The resident’s reports of a non-functioning ventilation system Finding No maladministration The resident complained that the ventilation system had not worked since she moved in. The landlord’s September 2024 stage 1 response said it would replace the ventilation system after several unsuccessful visits to try to repair it.

It detailed an appointment and said the resident would be charged for the new system but not the visits. The October 2024 stage 2 response detailed a further appointment and said it would not charge to replace the new system. Its November 2024 follow-up confirmed this and detailed a further appointment, saying if there further delays or cancellations it would engage another contractor. The evidence shows that the resident reported issues with the ventilation system from January 2024, and from then the landlord took action to arrange visits and quotes for the ventilation system.

It continued to progress the ventilation system works after its November 2024 follow-up and the new ventilation system was installed in January 2025. The landlord’s response for the complaint we have investigated was overall reasonable. It reflected the evidence. It acknowledged issues with the ventilation system and confirmed action to resolve it. It then met its commitments in its complaint responses to replace the system. This was appropriate and in line with what we would expect.

The resident made a later complaint about the length of time, and number of appointments, it took to resolve the issue. It is evident that the landlord responded to this at stage 1 of its complaints procedure and awarded £500, but it is unclear if the resident escalated this complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She had the option to progress this through the landlord’s complaints procedure, and refer this to us for a separate investigation, if she was dissatisfied with this.

The resident also made a later complaint which included concerns about the costs she had incurred for the ventilation system. The landlord responded to this at stage 2 and set out its position that from the time she had made it aware of faults with the ventilation system, she had not incurred any costs for the service. The resident has the option to refer this to us for a separate investigation, if she was dissatisfied with this. Complaint Concerns about service charges and management of the service charge account Finding No maladministration The resident complained about the service charges for issues related to her complaints.

This included the CCTV, the residents from the other block having access to her block and using communal water, and the window cleaning. The landlord’s September 2024 stage 1 response said the resident would be reimbursed for any services not provided, through adjustments in the service charges. Its October 2024 stage 2 response then said its service charge team had internally discussed service charge adjustments, and would contact the resident in the near future. Its November 2024 follow-up responses confirmed it had re-allocated charges where there was a clear distinction between the block and the estate.

We do not have the authority or expertise to make definitive decisions about the reasonableness of service charges and whether they are payable. We have informed the resident that this is for the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can initially consider how a landlord has responded and if this is reasonably in line with each parties’ obligations. The landlord’s general approach has reflected that the lease obligates the resident to pay towards the costs that it incurs for services, such as the costs of CCTV.

The resident pays towards costs that the landlord estimates may be incurred in the following financial year. The landlord later reconciles the estimated and actual costs. This results in any differences being settled and the application of a credit or debit to the account. As noted, the landlord confirmed this would happen in the case of service charges such as the window cleaning. It also confirmed that it would discuss making adjustments and contact the resident about this.

The landlord later made a number of adjustments which resulted in credits to the resident’s account. The landlord’s response for the complaint we have investigated was overall reasonable. Its approach to service charges and reconciliation of these have been in line with the lease. It provided reasonable explanation about its approach. It met its commitments in the complaint to review the service charges and make appropriate adjustments. The resident has made further enquiries and complaints about service charges such as the CCTV, which the landlord has responded to, including at stage 2 in some cases.

She has the option to refer any further complaints the landlord has responded to at stage 2 to us for a separate investigation, if she was dissatisfied with these. Alternatively, she has the option to obtain independent advice, or refer any service charges that she disputes to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a final determination. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.

It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. It is unclear the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledged in line with this, but its stage 1 response was provided in line with these timeframes. The landlord then provided an acknowledgement and response at stage 2 within the timescale in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication The record keeping and communication were generally positive, but some of the record keeping about the resident’s block and estate comes across as unclear.

It may have been potentially beneficial for the landlord to be able to retrieve and consult historical and/or legal records about the block and estate, to help clarify the access rights and obligations. It could reflect on this and consider any learning.