The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Crawley Borough Council (202003168)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003168

Crawley Borough Council

23 February 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The resident’s liability to pay costs relating to repairs to his porch roof, included in his 2018-2019 service charges.
    2. The standard of the works carried out to the resident’s porch roof under a major works programme in 2018-2019.

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 under Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a Council. The property is a maisonette situated on the first and second floor of the block. The lease commenced on 10 May 1988.
  2. On 9 July 2018, the landlord issued a Section 20 Notice regarding its proposal to carry out major works to the resident’s property, including the replacement of the resident’s porch roof and fascias. The replacement works were carried out at the resident’s property between late 2018 and early 2019.
  3. On 30 September 2019, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about an invoice he had received in his 2018-2019 accounts, which included costs related to his porch roof. The resident said that he should not have been charged for the works as they related to the replacement of his porch roof, which was carried out as part of the major works programme at his property, and therefore should either have been covered by insurance or the contractors.
  4. On 28 February 2020, the resident submitted a further complaint that the new replacement roof to his porch leaked and needed a second coating as the work was so ‘‘shoddy’’.
  5. The landlord’s issued its final response on 1 May 2020. The landlord explained that the invoice the resident had been charged for related to a leak to the porch on 12 September 2018, prior to the replacement of his roof. The landlord advised the resident that if he wished to challenge the reasonableness of his service charge or whether the landlord had carried out due process to enable recovery of the service charge then this should be done via the First Tier Tribunal (Property Division).
  6. The landlord also noted that the resident had reported an issue with his porch roof during the course of the major works programme which resulted in a call out to refix the plastic sheeting. The landlord said that following the completion of the works, there was also a further call out due to a leak from the porch roof. The landlord acknowledged that the work should have been completed correctly the first time and apologised for this. The landlord also confirmed that the contactor had decorated the inside of the porch to remedy the damage caused by the second leak.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which 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.
  2. The resident has complained about his liability to pay an invoice for works to his porch roof included in this 2018-2019 Service charge accounts and about the standard of the works carried out to his porch roof, as part of the major works programme at his property in the same year.
  3. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that both elements of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction to consider. This is because complaints that relate to a resident’s liability to pay service charges and whether service chargeable works are carried out to a reasonable standard fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Including works that were subject to major works consultation procedures.