Vivid Housing Limited (202009229)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009229

Vivid Housing Limited

9 August 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns with her service charge increase.

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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

4. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord.
5. On 21 September 2020 the landlord sent the resident an annual service charge statement.
6. The resident advised the landlord on 30 September 2020 that she was dissatisfied with the service charge levels. She asked it to provide information, and explain the reasoning behind the increases. The landlord provided its grounds service and caretaking level agreements on 1 October 2020. The resident disputed that it had carried out all the work as set out in these agreements. She was dissatisfied with the “day to day repair charge” as she said there were multiple incomplete and outstanding repairs. She also asked it questions relating to charges for communal water, tree works, and communal electricity.
7. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 November 2020. She was dissatisfied with its answers to her questions. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 4 December 2020. It explained why the grounds maintenance charge had increased (it had remeasured the area). The resident escalated her complaint on 23 December 2020. She disputed the reasons for the increases, and whether they reflected the work being done. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 26 January 2021. It said it had remeasured following a recommendation from a residents scrutiny panel, and an external grounds maintenance audit in 2016.
8. The resident explained to this Service on 22 March 2021 that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. Amongst other things, she said it had charged her for incomplete work, and not given her notice that there would be an increase.

Reasons

9. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that “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”.
10. Although parts of the resident’s complaint are about the landlord’s responses to her queries relating to her service charge, her fundamental concerns are the increase, and level of it. For example, in her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that she does not believe she received a level of service from the landlord which would warrant her service charge.
11. Complaints relating to the level, and reasonableness of service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The tribunal can determine whether certain charges have been reasonably incurred, and who is liable to pay them. Because of this, and in line with paragraph 39(i), this is not a complaint that the Ombudsman will investigate.