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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202005579)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005579

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 April 2021


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 concerns the level of service charges and how they have been apportioned.

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.

Summary of events

  1. On 21 February 2020, the landlord sent out a notification letter to the resident concerning an increase to rent and service charges.
  2. On 2 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the increase. She said the increase was substantial and that the cost of the communal electricity bill was more than her personal electricity bill and didn’t think that could be correct. She also complained that the caretaking costs had more than doubled and that she believed she was paying more in service charges than other flats which were identical in size to her own.
  3. On 31 March, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It explained the cost of the electricity was the amount billed by the energy supplier. It also explained how it worked out the service charge for caretaking and that there was no variation of the costs in neighbouring flats.
  4. On 24 April, the resident contacted her landlord again and requested an escalation of the complaint. She said she did not think the electricity costs were reasonable, and asked for a further explanation concerning the caretaking costs. She also provided evidence to show that other tenant’s charges did vary to her own even though she understood that the tenancy agreements and property types were the same.
  5. The resident also contacted her MP who made an enquiry concerning her complaint directly with the landlord. The landlord provided a response to the MP in May.
  6. On 2 July, the landlord issued its final response to the resident. It noted the MP enquiry and reiterated its previous position. It also referred the resident to this service if she was unhappy with the decision.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 (g) of the Scheme states that: The Ombudsman will not consider 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;
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Service does not consider complaints about the amount or reasonableness of service charges and cannot make a binding decision on the matter. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is the appropriate body to consider whether the amount charged for services is reasonable and supported by the appropriate evidence.  In addition, The First Tier Property Tribunal (Property Chamber) can make a binding decision about the level of the service charge and whether it is reasonable for the standard of the service being provided.
  3. This Service can only investigate how the landlord has apportioned or calculated service charges in relation to the resident’s property. It cannot carry out an investigation to consider all service charges across the entire estate to confirm whether or not these are correct. Furthermore, if there is a dispute about how the tenancy is being interpreted it would be a matter for a Court or Tribunal to determine.
  4. This complaint primarily focuses on the reasonableness of the increase to the service charges.  For a binding decision to be made about this, then the resident will need to seek a remedy through the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).  For this reason, the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 39 (g) of the Scheme.
  5. Details for the Tribunal are as follows:

The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)

10 Alfred Place London WC1E 7LR

Email: rplondon@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Telephone 0207 446 7700