Hyde Housing Association Limited (202008966)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008966

Hyde Housing Association Limited

12 August 2021


Our approach

  1. 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. 
  2. 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 level and reasonableness of service charges at the property, including, and in particular, in relation to fire and safety charges and the landlord’s administration of the service charge account overall, including it charging for services not received and making errors in its calculations and charging between 2018-2021.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s communication in respect of the service charge account and its subsequent handling of the complaint.  

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

Summary of events

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, at the property, from October 2014.
  2. In 2014, the resident became concerned about the level and reasonableness of the service charges and also began questioning the accuracy of the charges being made.  Communication regarding this commenced between the resident and landlord and continued over a period of four years, with the resident extensively questioning the service charges levied and accounts.
  3. On 7 December 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of his service charge account and the level and reasonableness of charges, in particular, to fire and safety, referencing three cases (September 2018, February 2019 and September 2019) he had had open previously with the landlord regarding these issues. 
  4. The resident was dissatisfied too, with the landlord’s handling of his queries, taking a lengthy period of time to respond to him and not always responding fully. As resolution to his complaint, the resident wanted all of the issues relating to his service charge account addressed.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord thereafter about the issues raised in his complaint, including on 9 and 20 April 2020, with the landlord discussing the issues with him on this later date and the resident contacting the landlord again on 7 May 2020.
  6. Two months after that and seven months from when his complaint was made, the landlord issued its stage one response on 16 July 2020.  In its response, the landlord accepted there had been some errors in administering the service charge account and poor communication. It arranged for refunds and recalculations to be made and offered £150 in recognition of its communication failures.
  7. In terms of the reasonableness of service charges, it noted there had been a section 20 consultation in respect of fire safety costs in May 2018 and January 2019.
  8. On 8 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting escalation of his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure, expressing his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response.  He continued to question the level of service charges, in particular in respect of the fire and safety charge and added that the landlord had not sent him the account statements he had requested, nor carried out some of what it said it would in respect of services themselves.
  9. The resident advised he may be taking the matter to the First Tier Tribunal due to the unreasonableness of costs.  He was also dissatisfied in the length of time it had taken the landlord to respond to his complaint. 
  10. On 7 April 2021 (incorrectly dated 7 March 2021) the landlord sent its stage two response to the complaint (also incorrectly referred to as a stage one response). The landlord found communication and complaint handling failures and offered the resident £175 in recognition of this. It found that some of the queries the resident had asked had been resolved, referencing an email the resident had sent it confirming this.
  11. It explained that the increase in the level of service charge for the fire and safety, was due to “reactive repairs/replacements” although no further information was provided.  It again acknowledged there had been an error in its administration of some of the service charges but noted that these had been rectified.  It advised that a review of the latest financial year was being undertaken and it would be in touch in due course.
  12. On 15 April 2021 the landlord sent the same letter of 7 April 2021 to him again, however, this time increasing the level of compensation to £250.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.

 

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, 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”.

 

  1. The resident recognises, in his correspondence with the landlord, that his complaint may be appropriate to take to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT).  This is because he is dissatisfied with the level of service charge and service charge increase associated with fire and safety and this is a matter most appropriately dealt with by the FTT and is not one which the Ombudsman can investigate and rule on. The FTT has the power to make decisions, binding on the parties, in respect of the liability to pay a service charge and whether the charge has been reasonably incurred. Similarly, the landlord referred to a Section 20 consultation in respect of these charges, which is also a matter for the FTT, rather than the Ombudsman, to consider. The FTT can determine whether there have been any failures to meet statutory obligations.

 

  1. Despite the resident also complaining about service charge calculations and the landlord’s communication and complaint handling, these are intrinsically linked to his concerns about the service charge levels and increase.  To separate out these issues, making a determination on other aspects in isolation would not be appropriate or in accordance with dispute resolution principles or good practice complaint handling.  Dealing with the complaint in this way would mean not investigating or acknowledging what, if anything, went wrong and why in respect of the substantive aspects of the resident’s case. Furthermore, the complaint investigation would not acknowledge any landlord responsibility and the outcome sought by the complainant.  Nor would it take appropriate steps to remedy any service failure, should that be the case. The FTT is able to look at the case as a whole.

 

  1. While the Ombudsman is not able to decide on this matter for jurisdictional reasons, it notes the landlord’s acknowledgment and recognition of service failure in respect of its communication and complaint handling, as well as its admission of some service charge errors made.  Irrespective of jurisdiction, the landlord, as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Service, is expected to learn from acknowledged mistakes and communication and complaint handling failures, such as in the case here, and to put in place steps to prevent a recurrence.

 

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this is likely to be a disappointing outcome for the resident who has undoubtedly experienced frustration in respect of the issues raised, the landlord’s handling of them and the subsequent complaint. It would be remiss, however, for this Service to rule within jurisdiction part of the complaint when it is not possible to consider another interrelated matter.  The Ombudsman apologises for the length of time that it has taken to confirm our jurisdiction in respect of the complaint.  Jurisdiction is a complex matter and to come to a conclusion on the complaint a thorough assessment the facts had to be completed first