Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Birmingham City Council (201915607)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915607

Birmingham City Council

23 December 2020


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.  

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the level of service charge for major works.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraphs 39 (g), (i) and (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.   

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the local authority. In July 2019 she contacted the landlord to explain that she received a letter about the landlord’s intention to carry out major works on the block where her property is, she enquired about the “main service upgrade” which was “more than £7000”.
  2. The landlord replied and provided a list of the works which were involved. The resident replied to the landlord’s information and said that “more than £7000 sound excessive for myself. Is 10% of what I have paid for my flat just a few years ago…” and further asked for a cost breakdown of the services.
  3. Subsequently, in August 2019, the landlord sent a response that said:
    1. There was an improvement programme to upgrade the electrical main distribution services to its housing of multi-occupancy where it was identified that it did not comply with current regulations or where the original installations had come to the end
    2. It had identified that the main electrical supply to the resident’s property required improvement as it did not comply with the current regulations
    3. It set out the proposed works and explained that the works were appointed to a contractor following a tender process and said this involved several quotes being considered.
  4. The resident iterated her request for a breakdown of the work along with evidence that this was the most competitive, and explained her concern again that “this is a lot of money that you require me to pay and support, which represent a financial difficulty for myself”.
  5. The landlord’s response of October 2019 said that any rates used to calculate the costs were part of the original tender and “as such are commercially sensitive”. It directed the resident to the Housing Ombudsman to investigate if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. In February 2020 she received a final response from the landlord, this said that the information which the resident requested was deemed commercially sensitive and if the resident remained dissatisfied, she may contact a different Ombudsman (the “Local Government Ombudsman”).
  7. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service in March 2020 to set out her concern. She explained that she was considered to owe approximately £7000 in respect of repairs to the building and when she asked the landlord what the amount covered, it told her it was for electrical work for the building, but she found this to be “a lot of money”. The Ombudsman explained that it cannot consider complaints about the level of service charge and iterated this point in May 2020. The resident was signposted to the Leasehold Advisory Service by the Ombudsman in July 2020 when she contacted the Service about her case. The Ombudsman subsequently progressed the case to be formally considered.
  8. Subsequently, in July 2020, the resident raised further concerns to the landlord. This time, it was about the landlord’s consultation process. The resident said that as leaseholders they have the right to be consulted regarding major works that exceed £250 or which last longer than 12 months and cost over £100 (“according to point 7 of the Service Charges – Summary of Tenants Rights and Obligations”). The resident said she only received a ‘notice of intention’ letter dated 15 July 2019 about major works. The landlord responded and said that the notice of intention is the formal consultation required under the legislation; this required a brief description of the works and estimate of costs, with an offer for residents to submit any observations within 30 days.

Reasons

  1. Under paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

g. concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase

i. concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure

m. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body

  1. The resident’s complaint is outside of the Housing Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction as the complaint is ultimately about the level of the service charge associated with the major works. The resident confirmed several times that the cost was a lot of money, and while it is acknowledged that the resident has expressed the financial difficulty that this would impose, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the service charge being too high. Such concerns may be enquired about with the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (‘FTT’).
  2. With respect to the landlord’s decision not to disclose information and citing the commercially sensitive nature of this, the Ombudsman would not be in a position to assess the information and make a decision over whether this is the case. The evidence suggests that the resident’s request for this information was due to her belief that the cost was too high, however, if she remains unhappy about the landlord’s decision not to share the information with her, she may enquire about her options with the Information Commissioner’s officer (‘ICO’).