Harlow District Council (202207383)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207383

Harlow District Council

14 July 2023

 

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 a service charge cost for communal redecorations completed within the resident’s block of flats.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 30 September 2021, the landlord’s contractor completed redecoration works in the communal area of the resident’s block of flats. An invoice was issued on     8 October 2021 and the resident was charged a service charge of £1599.36 for the completed works.
  3. On 21 December 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He explained that the complaint was about a service charge bill which he received for redecoration works completed in the communal area. The resident stated that he received an invoice for £1599.36 for the redecoration works. However, a neighbour in an adjacent block was charged a lower amount of £623 for similar works.
  4. On 10 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It explained that the two major works projects comprising of three blocks were tendered in accordance with its procurement procedures. The landlord stated that the winning contractor for one of the projects was a very small contractor and was only capable of undertaking a certain level of work. Therefore, the contractor was not invited to submit a tender for the second project which included the resident’s building and another, more expensive contractor was selected for this job.
  5. On 31 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage. The resident stated that the landlord had not provided him with a sufficient explanation as to why he was paying £1000 more than his neighbours for the communal redecoration works.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 17 February 2022. It explained that a notice of intention was issued on the 12 March 2021, which detailed the list of works. Then a subsequent notice of estimate was issued on    22 July 2021 providing full details of the contractors who had submitted a tender for the works. Both notices invited residents to submit their written observations concerning the proposed work and the cost of those works. However, the landlord states that no observations were received. The landlord stated that the full costs of the works were divided equally by the number of properties within the block.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated his desired outcome was for the landlord to refund the difference in service charge costs he paid for the communal redecoration works compared to the amount residents in the other block paid.

Assessment and findings

  1. This report will consider whether the landlord provided a sufficient response to the resident’s query regarding the difference in his service charge bill compared to his neighbours in an adjacent block. Disputes about the level of rent or service charge or level of increase are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Therefore, the Ombudsman will not respond to the resident’s concerns about the level of service charge cost, including whether it represented good value for money.
  2. The landlord’s website provides information about major works and service charges. It explains that on occasions the landlord will need to carry out major work on the building or estate, which would include a resident’s flat or maisonette. It states that leaseholders, in most cases, are legally obliged to contribute towards the cost of this work. It also states that these charges are in addition to a leaseholder’s usual service and routine repair charges. If they are more than £250, it will need to consult with the leaseholders affected (known as a Section 20 consultation).
  3. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also states that a landlord must consult leaseholders who are required under the terms of their lease to contribute to costs incurred through their service charges where the work will cost any one leaseholder more than £250.
  1. The landlord contacted the resident and the other residents located in his block of flats to inform them of its intention to carry out works in the communal areas of the block. The notice of intention was issued on 12 March 2021. The list of proposed works included minor repairs to the communal doors and plasterwork. It also included redecoration and repainting areas in the communal area. The notice explained that the resident should send any observations regarding the works by 14 April 2021.
  2. On 22 July 2021, the landlord issued the resident with a notice of estimate for the communal area works. The notice included a list of the proposed works and explained the resident’s estimated contribution for the works would be £1607.50. It also explained that the consultation in respect of the notice of intention ended on 14 April 2021.
  3. On 30 September 2021, the landlord issued the resident with a letter confirming which contractor it had awarded the tender to for the communal redecoration works. The landlord also stated that the resident’s estimated contribution would be £1607.50.
  4. The landlord has provided information showing the quotes it received from different contractors for the proposed communal redecoration works within the resident’s block. The landlord requested quotes from four contractors. The first contractor did not submit a quote. The second contractor quoted, £21,220, the third contractor quoted £19,290 and the fourth contractor quoted £19,449. The contractor which was awarded the tender was contractor three, which provided the cheapest quote for the proposed works at the resident’s block of flats.
  5. It is evident that the landlord followed the consultation process in line with its major works and service charge policy on its website and in line with section     20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Therefore, the Ombudsman believes the landlord acted appropriately and fairly when it selected a contractor for the communal redecoration works.
  6. The landlord also explained to the resident in its stage one complaint response that the winning contractor for one of the projects which would have been for the adjacent block was a very small contractor and was only capable of undertaking a certain level of work. Therefore, the contractor was not invited to submit a tender for the second project which included the resident’s block. The Ombudsman believes this explanation is reasonable and it recognises that it is out of a landlord’s control if a contractor does not have the capability or capacity to complete an additional project. In this situation. It may be necessary for the landlord to use a more expensive contractor for the additional work. The landlord would be expected to seek the most cost-effective solution it could by obtaining several quotes, as in this case.
  7. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident must be frustrated with the difference in costs for his service charge invoice compared to his neighbours in the adjacent block. However, the resident did not submit any observations or objections about the estimated cost of works during the consultation period. It is understood that the resident may have been unaware of his neighbours’ charges during this period and therefore unable to object on this basis. However, the landlord would still only be expected to act on objections received during the consultation period in line with its service charge obligations. In addition, the landlord has provided a reasonable explanation of why the service charge costs differ. Therefore, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a service charge cost for communal redecorations completed within the resident’s block of flats.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a service charge cost for communal redecorations completed within the resident’s block of flats.