Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited (202311941)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311941

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited

3 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her service charges.

Background

  1. The resident is the shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat within a supported living block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On an unknown date, possibly in February 2022, the landlord sent the resident a letter detailing her service charge amount from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. It enclosed a breakdown of services and their costs by block and flat also with an information sheet about service charges. On an unknown date she contacted her MP, who emailed the landlord on 17 June 2023 with her service charge query about staff salary costs. It replied to the MP on 29 June 2023 to explain it could not disclose staff members’ salaries due to the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It gave the total cost and a list of staff roles.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a letter detailing her service charge amount from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 on 15 February 2023. As it only included a breakdown of costs for the property she asked it for a breakdown of total costs for the block on 2 March 2023. It provided this on 15 March 2023. She asked to speak to it about the service charges on 4 and 5 April 2023 and contacted her MP. The MP emailed the landlord on 13 April 2023 to pass on the resident’s queries. It replied the following day and said it had spoken to her and there had been a meeting with residents. It said it would investigate the concerns and provide a response which it did on 21 April 2023. In its response it explained why its window cleaning costs were high, explained other charges and that it would refund an overcharge for the previous year. On 5 July 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint which was about:
    1. Queries about various service charges including communal fuel, window cleaning, Wi-Fi, communal repairs, TV licence, laundry equipment, staff costs, gardening, and the management fee.
    2. The landlord’s estimate always being less than the actual charges and having to pay the difference.
    3. The breakdown of charges provided was not sufficient and did not show increases.
    4. Needing better communication with the landlord about service charges.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. It asked for an extension of time on 20 July 2023, but then provided its response that day, in which it:
    1. Answered the resident’s queries.
    2. Said it could not provide a further breakdown of staff salaries due to GDPR.
    3. Explained it was not standard practice to provide a copy of the building insurance certificate as it had a group policy covering many different buildings.
    4. Said the management fee charged covered matters detailed in the lease.
    5. Did not uphold the complaint.
  5. On 27 July 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint as she said the landlord had not fully answered her questions. It acknowledged her complaint the next day and met with her on 10 August 2023 to discuss the complaint. Following an extension of time request, it provided its stage 2 response on 18 August 2023 in which it:
    1. Further answered her queries providing more details.
    2. Confirmed that the communal Wi-Fi was not “unsafe” as she had suggested, but that everyone should bear in mind that it was public Wi-Fi and so to be aware of this.
    3. Explained that tenants pay towards the service charges as part of their rent and that it was not just leaseholders paying for the service.
    4. Said it would complete more gardening.
    5. Explained it needed more time to respond to her complaint about staffing costs.
    6. Provided a copy of the building insurance policy schedule.
    7. Detailed the activities that the management fee paid for.
    8. Explained the nature of variable service charges and why there can be a deficit to pay when the accounts are finalised each year.
    9. Said there were regular meetings residents could attend with the landlord to discuss service charge issues.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 September 2023 to provide a detailed response and explanation for the rise in staffing costs. In September 2024 the landlord engaged an external consultant to carry out a service charge review and provided a copy of the report to residents. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she has had issues with her service charges for 7 years. She said the way the charges were calculated and apportioned was unfair, and the landlord’s management has been poor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out within the Scheme. Under paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. If the resident wishes to challenge the amount of her service charge or its reasonableness, she may do so by making an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). This Service can and has, however, considered how the landlord handled her enquiries.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her service charges

  1. Under the lease the resident covenants, or agrees, to pay a variable service charge to the landlord for “expenditure reasonably incurred…in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services…and any administrative charges incurred.” The lease sets out that the landlord will provide an estimate and then a statement of actual expenditure after the accounts have been certified each year. This is in line with the definition of a variable service charge under section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The landlord’s rent and service charge policy mirrors the lease provisions. It also explains that service charges can relate to services “which may be connected with communal facilities rather than being particular to the occupation of a dwelling.”
  3. Sections 21 to 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 set out a landlord’s responsibility for the provision of information to residents about service charges. The landlord must provide a summary of costs incurred by it if requested and must also allow the resident to inspect or take copies of accounts, receipts, and other supporting documents if requested. The landlord provided the resident with a statement following accounts being certified each year, with a breakdown of costs incurred and whether there was a resulting credit or deficit to be paid. There is no evidence that the resident requested to see copies of receipts or invoices, but the landlord has provided a large quantity of these to the Ombudsman.
  4. When the resident made enquiries via her MP the landlord responded to each enquiry. It was understandable that it could not disclose the salaries of individual staff members as this was their personal data and so protected under GDPR. The landlord appropriately explained this but did provide high level information on total salary costs and number of staff roles on site, which answered the enquiry. It also appropriately explained costs, including why window cleaning was expensive, as it required an abseiling team. While the landlord’s policy does not set a timeframe for it to respond to enquiries, it did respond to both MP enquiries within a reasonable time. It also contacted the resident directly which was positive.
  5. When the resident made further enquiries, via her complaints, the landlord answered these within its complaints policy response timeframes. It did not provide the insurance certificate or breakdown of what was paid for by the management fee at stage 1, but did so at stage 2, which remedied the initial failing. In terms of its communication, the landlord provided the estimated costs each year, the actual costs, and information sheets detailing resident’s rights. When she asked it for a breakdown of cost by block in 2023 it provided this within a reasonable time. Positively, it also said it held meetings with residents about service charges and met with her to discuss her stage 2 complaint before it responded.
  6. While the resident’s complaint shows she was not satisfied with the cost of services, or the provision of services she did not use. She has also told us about the other issues which have occurred before and since her complaint. Unfortunately, as set out above, these matters are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In relation to what we can consider, the landlord’s response to and handling of her enquiries, there was no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her service charges.