Citizen Housing (202016120)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016120

Citizen Housing

19 January 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. The complaint is about the level of the service charge and the explanation provided by the landlord for its increases.

Determination (Jurisdiction decision)

  1. When a complaint is bought 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.

Summary of events

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 August 2020 to complain about the different charges on his service charge account and disputed that he was liable for the service charge for water, repairs, fire alarm, television aerial, security services and for health and safety.
  2. The landlord responded to the complaint on 16 September 2020 explaining that previously the costs for some services were not charged which meant that the costs were not recovered from shared owners. Over the past year, it had changed its approach which enabled it to aggregate charges to the individual scheme level and recover the costs through the service charge. It confirmed that the service charges were correct and apologised if this had not been clearly explained in its previous correspondence.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied and wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2020 and 5 November 2020, advising that his concerns about the different charges including the water rates had not been addressed and that he was not liable and the charges should be removed from his account.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 26 October 2020 and 23 December 2020. It advised that the inaccuracies in the service charge demand arose from an incorrect code which had been corrected and provided an explanation for the costs for the security, CCTV, communal television aerial, communal water rates and communal health and safety. In addition, it confirmed that the  service charges had not been previously charged and provided evidence that the costs had been incurred.
  5. The resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on 6 January 2021 advising the resident had been living at the premises for the past ten years and had now been asked to pay for these service charges. The MP suggested that if the charges were due the resident was entitled to notice and a reasonable time to raise his concerns about the charges.
  6. The landlord responded to the MP on the 18 January 2021 advising that the matters were being considered through its complaint procedures. It explained that the service charges related to the common parts, the charges and invoices were under review, it could have been clearer in its communication and apologised for this.
  7. The landlord responded at the final stage of its complaint procedure on 12 February 2021 and in March 2021. It concluded that the removal of an incorrect charge had reduced the service charge from £242.32 to £170.06, it would consider whether the headings could be changed to make them clearer and photocopies of the invoices could be provided to evidence the charges. In addition, it apologised and offered a gesture of goodwill of £100 for not meeting its complaint handling timescale.
  8. The resident approached this Service to complain that the service charges remained inaccurate, he required assurance that the changes made to his service charge account had been applied to all shared owners. He also requested a detailed explanation for the increase in the service charge for fire/safety prevention. He also disputed he was liable for the communal TV aerial charge as he did not watch terrestrial television and the charge for communal water.

Reasons.

  1. The resident is disputing the service charges that the landlord is seeking to recover from him for the financial year 2019 to 2020, he is unhappy that the amount he is being charged has increased and that new elements have been included in the account for his property. He has raised several queries with the landlord about his liability for these service charges.
  2. Paragraph 39(g) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  3. In addition, paragraph 39(i) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme  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. The Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate this complaint because firstly, it is about the increase of the service charge and secondly, the appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider such complaints is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
  5. The First –Tier Tribunal can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges are 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 reasonableness of the service charge and/or the increase from the Tribunal.