Hyde Housing Association Limited (202423227)

Background

1. The resident raised her concerns that the landlord failed to follow the consultation requirements under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended). She said it had sent the notices to the property despite knowing she did not live there. Consequently, it failed to take into account her view of the works. She also said the scope of work included items which were improvements, not repairs. She therefore believed the charges were not payable. She said she was paying under protest and reserved her right to challenge the bill in court or at the tribunal.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s adherence to the section 20 consultation rules and whether the resident should have been required to pay.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of reasons

4. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint concerns whether the landlord complied with the consultation requirement and, ultimately, whether the service charge was payable.
5. Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 gives the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) the power to decide on reasonableness and payability of service charges, including whether:
   1. The charges had been reasonably incurred by the landlord.
   2. The work was payable under the terms of the lease.
   3. The amount was reasonable.
   4. The landlord properly carried out the consultation requirement.
6. As such, we have determined that it would be more appropriate and effective for the resident to approach the tribunal. This would enable the resident to establish whether it was reasonable for the landlord to request payment and/or if the statutory cap applies. The resident’s complaint is deemed outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction on this basis.