Southwark Council (202001947)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001947

Southwark Council

20 January 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 is about the increase to the service charge for major works following a section 20 consultation process.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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. 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

3. The resident is a leaseholder and owns a flat in a block. Following on from its notice of intention, the landlord issued a section 20 notice on 14 April 2014, with its proposal to carry out refurbishment works.
4. On 19 June 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint. He said there was an increase of more than 50 percent from the section 20 notice to the final account. He says the council did not inform the leaseholder of any extra works and he did not feel the council should pass on the increased costs of the major repairs to the leaseholders. He also cited negligence as the reason as to why the costs of refurbishment were so high.
5. On 2 September, the landlord issued its final response. It stated that the section 20 had informed the resident that the costs were an estimate and that the scope of the works had been provided. It also disputed any claims of negligence and advised the resident to refer the complaint to this service if they remained dissatisfied.
6. In June 2020, the resident contacted our service as they remained unhappy with the landlords decision to increase the service charge.

Reasons

7. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out when the Ombudsman will, and will not, investigate complaints. The relevant paragraphs in this case are as follows: Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states: The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings;

Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states: 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;

8. The main point raised by the resident concerns whether the council should charge leaseholders for the increase to the costs for the major works and he also disputed if all of the works were listed within the section 20 notice.
9. As this complaint concerns the increase to the service charges, the Ombudsman will not investigate it. The resident has the right to apply to the First Tier Tribunal to have this matter considered. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for this aspect of the complaint to be dealt with in this way, as the Tribunal would also consider whether the section 20 procedure was also complied with. This all goes to whether the service charge increase is payable, and if so, at what level. The tribunal can also consider whether the amount charged is reasonable.
10. These issues would be better dealt with by the Tribunal – such that the Ombudsman will not investigate them, pursuant to paragraphs 39(h) and (i) of the Scheme.