Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202012331)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012331

GreenSquareAccord

22 December 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 following issues:

a)     The landlord’s response to requests that service charges be suspended or reduced.

b)     The landlord’s application of an age limit for residents of the scheme prevented the estate from occupying the property, from renting the property, and delayed the sale of the property.

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. The complaint is brought by the daughter of the former occupant of the property. Sadly, the former occupant passed away and the daughter was appointed executor of her late father’s estate. The property was sold in December 2020 and it is not clear whether it remained with the estate or passed into the executor’s ownership. For clarity, we have used the term “resident” to describe the daughter, whether executor or owner of the property.
  2. Following the death of the resident’s father, the resident raised concerns regarding the liability to pay for service charges. The resident stated that it was unfair that service charges were due whilst the property remained unoccupied and requested that the landlord reduce or waive these.

 

  1.  The landlord refused to reduce or waive the service charges at the property. The resident states that they sought permission to live in the property. The property is located in a scheme with an age restriction. Occupants must be over 60 (or 55 depending on circumstances) to live in the scheme The resident states that the landlord refused explaining that they did not meet the age criteria of the property. The resident complained that it was unfair that they should pay for a property that the landlord would not allow them to make use of.
  2. The resident states that they made a request to sublet the property, which the landlord refused, explaining that the lease prohibits subletting. The resident complained that this was unfair, and another example of the landlord prohibiting them from making use of a property they were paying it for.
  3. The resident also put the property up for sale, which concluded in December 2020. During the sales process, the resident states that the landlord rejected applicants based on the age criteria of the housing scheme. The resident complaint that this caused sales to fall through and meant that they continued to incur ongoing costs.
  4. The resident also complained that, while the above was taking place, they became aware that the landlord had let one of its properties on the scheme to someone under 55 years of age. They complained that this was unfair.
  5. The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 27 October 2021. The landlord explained that the service charge is payable despite the property remaining unoccupied.
  6. The landlord set out that the lease for the property sets out that applicants who wish to purchase a property must meet a minimum age requirement of 60 years old or more or 55 for those who have taken early retirement due to infirmity or incapacity. However, it explained that there is no such restriction for rental applicants, which is why it was able to rent to a younger person.
  7. It explained that the applicants who attempted to purchase the property did not meet this requirement, which caused the sale to fall through. The landlord denied responsibility for any delays in the sales process
  8. The resident referred their complaint to this Service.

Reasons

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that

Paragraph 39i:

‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

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;’

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns their liability to pay service charges in full, or at a reduced rate, while the property was empty. The Ombudsman cannot make a determination about whether or not service charges are fair, reasonable or payable in accordance with the lease, this is a matter for the First-tier Tribunal.
  2. The rest of the issues raised by the resident, although varying, turn on two points:
    1. Whether the landlord correctly applied the terms of the lease when restricting the resident’s use of the property and attempts to sell the property.
    2. That, in doing so, the landlord caused the resident financial loss, either by being unable to use a property they were paying for or having to continue to pay for the property after the sale fell through. 
  3. The landlord explained that the terms of the leasehold agreement prohibited the resident from occupying the property, prohibited them from subletting the property, and rejected initial applicants who wished to purchase the property. The resident has explained that they consider this unfair, that they inherited a property which the landlord said they were obliged to pay for but which they could not make use of, and that this caused them financial loss.
  4. Resolving this complaint requires two things; an assessment of whether or not the landlord’s interpretation of the lease is correct and fair in the circumstances; and, if not, an assessment of the financial loss incurred by the resident.
  5. In this case, the landlord has clearly set out that it believes it has correctly applied the terms of the leasehold agreement. A dispute about the terms or fairness of a leasehold agreement is a matter for the Courts or Tribunal to consider, as they can issue a binding decision upon both parties, the Ombudsman cannot. Furthermore, this Service cannot assess liability for financial loss, or quantify any damages which may have been incurred, this is also a matter for the Courts to consider.
  6. Therefore, in line with paragraph 39i this case is better suited to be established by the court and is not a complaint that the Ombudsman can investigate further.
  7. If the resident remains dissatisfied with this issue, they may wish to seek further advice, the following organisations may be of use.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk

https://www.lease-advice.org/advice/find-the-right-information-for-you/?step-option=61

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber