Orbit Group Limited (202214357)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214357

Orbit Group Limited

10 July 2024

 

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Misrepresentation of the property before he purchased it;
    2. Increases to his service charge.

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.

 

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

 

  1. Under paragraph 42 (f) and (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint regarding misrepresentation of the property before he purchased it falls outside our jurisdiction.
  2. Under paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint regarding the increases in his service charge falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared owner. He is concerned that the price he paid for his property was increased because the landlord had committed to installing solar panels on the roof of the building. He is concerned that the cost of installation was included in the purchase price, and that the price was inflated by the expectation that the communal electric bills (and therefore his service charge) would be lower due to savings made by the generation of power onsite.

 

  1. Under paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Under paragraph 42 (o) of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
  2. It is our opinion that the resident’s complaint that he paid the price he did for the property due to alleged misrepresentation by the landlord is a matter which we are not in a position to issue a decision on, or to provide remedies for. It is our opinion that this concerns a matter which would most appropriately be resolved by the courts, should the resident wish to pursue the matter. This is because the purchase price of the property was subject to a legally binding contractual agreement between the parties. Any dispute about the information that was provided in relation to that sale is therefore best considered by the court, which can issue a decision which is binding on the parties.
  3. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the rate by which his service charge has increased. He has questioned whether the service charges he has been billed for are legitimate.
  4. Under paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Under paragraph 42 (f) we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  5. It is our opinion that the resident’s objections to the service charge he has been billed for may be more satisfactorily considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Tribunal has the ability to issue decisions as to whether service charges are reasonable or appropriate, and whether a resident is liable (responsible) for payment of them.

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord has issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It has engaged with his questions regarding the service charges, and provided its explanation for them.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the property purchase price in its stage 2 complaint response, and expressed some empathy with his position.
  3. Given the financial remedies the resident is seeking in this case, we consider that the matters he has raised sit better with legal processes.