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

Plus Dane Housing Limited (202007788)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007788

Plus Dane Housing Group Limited

7 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 landlord’s response to the instatement of service charges for garden maintenance.

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. In February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that in April 2020 it would be introducing service charges for grounds maintenance.
  2. On 30 June 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord objecting to the instatement of grounds maintenance charges. The resident stated that there were little communal areas in vicinity of his home, he maintained his own private garden and that his tenancy agreement did not permit for the introduction of the charges.

The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 6 October 2020. It explained that the landlord had previously covered the cost of grounds maintenance but was no longer in a position to continue this. It would therefore be collecting this charge from the residents via a service charge. The resident brought their complaint to this Service and explained that he did not consider that he benefits from the proposed grounds maintenance. The resident also explained that his understanding was that the landlord’s decision to recharge grounds maintenance through service charges was in breach of his tenancy agreement, therefore he did not believe he should pay for them.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

The Ombudsman will not investigate 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;

  1. In this case the resident has been clear that his complaint relates directly to the landlord’s decision to recharge residents for grounds maintenance, and his belief that doing so is in breach of his tenancy agreement. The landlord has set out that it believes tat it can recharge its tenants and leaseholders for grounds maintenance This Service cannot issue a binding decision about the liability to pay for the service charges. Therefore, this case is better suited to the First-Tier Tribunal and is not a complaint that the Ombudsman can investigate further.
  2. If the resident wishes to pursue the matter further, they may wish to contact Shelter, Citizens Advice, or seek independent legal advice.