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

Derwent Housing Association Limited (202106364)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106364

Derwent Housing Association Limited

21 April 2022

 

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. This complaint is about the service charge relating to drainage repairs.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39 (g) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  3. Paragraph 39 (i) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme also states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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
  4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (g) and (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this complaint about the service charged for the drainage repairs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a one bedroom, first floor flat.
  2. Following a rat infestation, the landlord conducted a CCTV inspection of the drains. The investigation concluded that work was required to the communal and individual drains to the properties. The landlord proposed that it would undertake works to remedy the damage to its residents’ individual drains at the same time as it was undertaking works to the communal drains. Alternatively, its residents could obtain their own contractor.
  3. The landlord records show that between February 2019 and 11 December 2019 that:
    1. it visited the site and located the drainage pipe related to the resident’s property.
    2. it sent detailed information to the resident regarding the drainage works and acknowledged that some of its residents had received incorrect information about the cost of the drainage works
    3. it issued a Notice of Intention to carry out qualifying works: communal drainage works, informed the resident that a contractor had been appointed and provided an estimated cost of £2016.00 for the works to remedy the defect to his drain
    4. arranged a residents’ meeting on 11 December 2019 for residents to raise concerns before the work due to commence on 6 January 2020.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 December 2019, following receipt of the landlord’s communication of 23 December 2019 informing him of the price increase for the drainage works. He questioned the reason for the price increase advising that he had been unable to discuss the contents of the landlord’s communication as its office was closed for the Christmas break. The resident sent a cheque for the 10% deposit of £202.
  5. Evidence seen by this Service shows that the contractor completed the work to the soil pipe in January 2020.
  6. The landlord sent a revised bill for £1360.00 plus VAT in October 2020 for the drainage repair advising that the joint had been replaced without the need to install a new soil vent pipe. It provided a copy of the CCTV footage as evidence of the drainage works.
  7. On 18 October 2020, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and complained that it had failed to evidence that works had been carried out to his property. He considered that the repair to the drains fell within the landlord’s repairing obligations, therefore he was not liable for the charge.
  8. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints on 16 December 2020 and  24 February 2021 concluded that it was satisfied that the drainage works were completed to his property. It advised that the resident could commission his own survey and if that survey concluded that the works to the drain had not been undertaken, it would refund the resident the money paid for the repair. In addition, it made a good will gesture for the error regarding the initial amount requested for the drainage repair and as it missed an opportunity to provide clear information to the resident regarding the costs for the drainage repair.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to the Independent Complaints Panel on 7 March 2021 which decided on 30 March 2021 that it would not review the complaint regarding the drainage work as the landlord in its complaint response had made a reasonable offer to refund any money paid if the independent survey concluded that the works had not been completed by the landlord.
  10. The resident disputes that the landlord carried out the work to repair the displaced joint to the soil vent pipe to his property and as such that he is liable for the associated service charge. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine a resident’s liability to pay for any service charges including costs related to repairs at the property, this also includes determining whether the level of those charges is reasonable or not.  The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider such complaints is the First -Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
  11. The First – Tier Tribunal can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. It would therefore be more reasonable and effective for the resident to seek a determination on the level and reasonableness of the service charge including whether the resident is liable to pay for the drainage repairs.