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

Norwich City Council (201915203)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915203

Norwich City Council

2 June 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 leaseholder complained about the following issues:
    1. That the landlord did not provide information explaining that the property had no television aerial during the sales process.
    2. That they should not be liable for service charges for a television aerial.

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 leaseholder contacted this Service on 28 February 2020 and explained that the landlord is charging him for a television aerial service. The leaseholder explained that his property has not been connected to the communal aerial and therefore he has not benefited from the charges incurred.
  2. Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued a final response on the 24 July 2020. The landlord advised that when the digital switchover came into effect, all the communal aerials were upgraded to digital ones to maintain television services for residents. This occurred before the resident purchased the property.

The landlord advised that as several years had passed since the switchover, they no longer held evidence pertaining to whether an offer was made to connect the previous owner. It also explained that it could not agree to reimburse any charges the leaseholder incurred for the aerial as although they did not have the benefit of the service, they had access to it.

  1. There does not appear to be a dispute that the property has no aerial point installed. The landlord explained that the previous resident may have refused the installation. The landlord also stated that, during the sales process, it provided information in the solicitor’s pack that showed that the resident would be liable to pay a charge for the aerial.
  2. In an email to this Service on the 4 March 2021, the leaseholder explained they raised concerns about the aerial charges with the landlord in 2016. The leaseholder explained that they understand that the previous leaseholder refused installation of the aerial at the property. The leaseholder believes that the landlord failed to provide this information when they purchased the property in 2012 and, as they have no aerial connection in their property, that they should not be liable for the service charges relating to this.
  3. In a call to this Service on the 12 April 2021, the leaseholder explained they refute the landlord’s claim that they were informed that the property had no aerial service when they purchased the property. The leaseholder confirmed that the landlord offered to connect an aerial at its cost, however it would not reimburse all the service charge payments already made for this.

Reasons

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out the types of complaints which this Service can and cannot consider.
  2. Paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme stated that:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising;’

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the 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;’’

Information provided during the sales process

  1. This part of the resident’s complaint concerns the accuracy of information provided by the landlord during the sales process. From the information provided to this Service, we understand that the resident purchased the property in 2012. They did not bring a complaint concerning the information provided during the purchase until 2019. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint as it was brought to the landlord 7 years after the purchase of the property.

Liability to pay service charges for the aerial service

  1. The leaseholder explains that, as they do not have use of an aerial in their property, they should not be liable to pay service charges for this. The landlord’s response sets out that it believes that the terms of the lease allow it to charge the resident for this service, regardless of whether they have an aerial or not.
  2. Disputes about liability to pay service charges, or the interpretation of a lease require a binding decision from a Court or Tribunal. I am therefore satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, this complaint is not one which the Ombudsman can investigate further, as it is a matter for the First-tier Tribunal
  3. If the resident wishes to pursue their complaint further, they may wish to speak to the Leasehold Advisory Service or seek independent legal advice.

www.lease-advice.org

  1. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice to help them assess and clarify this issue.