Medway Council (202403696)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403696

Medway Council

26 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The level of the resident’s service charges.
    2. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s service charge queries.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, whose lease started on 22 May 2006. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a block (the building).
  2. The resident first contacted the landlord regarding concerns about an increase in service charge in November 2023.
  3. On 12 February 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He disputed some of the service charges, asked the landlord to remove those he had not agreed to, and refund payments he had already made.
  4. On 23 February 2024, the landlord provided its response. It explainedthe necessity of the disputed items and the services they related to. It also explained why the resident was liable to pay his share of them.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanations and on 12 March 2024 requested further information.
  6. The landlord treated this as a complaint escalation and sent its final response on 4 April 2024.It gave more details about the charges and explained why he was liable to pay them in line with his lease.
  7. The resident told the Service on 23 September 2024 that he remains dissatisfied with the service charges, specifically concerning asbestos testing, electrical testing, and minor works charges. The resident wants the landlord to provide information on how the charges were calculated, reasons for carrying out the works and evidence of them. He would also like for the landlord to cancel and refund any inappropriate service charges.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with theService, he informed us of a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of asbestos in his bathroom.
  2. Before the Ombudsman will consider a complaint, it needs to have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Accordingly, the resident should raise his concerns about the asbestos with the landlord as a complaint. If he remains dissatisfied once he has received its final response, he has the option of bringing the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman.
  3. The resident reported he had been having service charge issues since the start of his lease. However, he did not raise a complaint with the landlord until February 2024. Complaints should be raised promptly so that landlords can take action to resolve the issues, and as time passes records become available and memories fade. This investigation is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues at the property from November 2023, up to his complaint in February 2024 and the landlord’s final response to it in April 2024.

The level of the service charges

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme explains that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints where we consider it quicker, fairer and more effective to seek remedy through the courts, tribunal or procedure.
  3. Parts of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and Ombudsman involve his dispute of his liability to pay some of his service charges, their relevance to him, or their level.
  4. Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Tribunal can look at whether a refund of service charge should be given, and whether the charges are valid and appropriate. Because the Tribunal is the more appropriate organisation for a dispute of this nature, in line with paragraph 42.f these issues will not be considered in this report. Contact details for the Tribunal can be found online on its website.
  5. However, we can consider the landlord’s communication about the service charges and whether it followed its relevant policies and procedures.

The response to the resident’s queries about service charges

  1. The resident’s leasehold agreement says he is to pay a variable service charges to the landlord for all services it provides. In turn, it has an obligation to maintain the building. It will consult the resident about qualifying works and long-term agreements with contractors and will define the differences between repairs and improvements.
  2. In November 2023, the resident first enquired about the service charge. The landlord responded in December 2023. It gave a breakdown of works included in the service charge fee.
  3. On 12 February 2024, the resident complained. He disputed charges for asbestos and electrical testing, and minor works. The resident said he did not consent to these charges and asked the landlord to investigate.
  4. The landlord responded to his complaint on 23 February 2024. It explained the charges related to compliance requirements under the lease, including asbestos testing, fire risk assessments, electrical testing, and minor works. It provided invoices, statements, and a Section 20 notice for major works as evidence.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’sresponse. He requested more details about the asbestos test charge and disputed that he had consented to the electrical testing frequency.
  6. In the landlord’s final complaint response dated 4 April 2024, it said the asbestos test cost related to communal areas and formed part of the 2021-2022 actuals service charge. The landlord explained that it considers the frequency of the electrical testing reasonable to maintain the communal areas. It had a duty to manage the communal areas and the leaseholder has a duty to pay the service charges this work requires. The resident would have agreed to these terms in his lease agreement.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord responded to all the residents enquires and complaints. It explained the basis for each charge, gave supporting documents, and clarified compliance obligations under the lease. Nothing in the information from the landlord or resident suggests the landlord’s responses and explanations were inaccurate or unreasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the level of the resident’s service charges is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about service charges.