Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Ocean Housing Limited (202307659)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307659

Ocean Housing Limited

14 March 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of service charge increases.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is a housing association. The building is a tower block. The resident owns and rents out 2 flats in the building.
  2. Between 1 November 2022 and 14 April 2023, the resident and the landlord corresponded about the service charge invoice for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had increased its management charge without consulting with the residents, its management charge was not justifiable, its repayment policy was discriminatory, it made an error in its invoice, and its communication was poor.
  3. On 28 July 2023, after contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response. The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s:
    1. decision to increase its management charge without consulting the leaseholders
    2. response to the resident’s position that the management charge should be proportionate to the works it carries out
    3. different payment options for leaseholders that do not live in the building
    4. the landlord’s complaint handling
    5. the landlord’s response to an error on its initial invoice

As a resolution to the complaint the resident wanted a full explanation to each point raised, improved communication and complaint handling, and acknowledgement that it was the resident that found an error in its invoicing.

  1. On 14 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that the landlord’s
    1. failure to consult with resident’s before increasing its management fee is a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
    2. response to her proposal to have its management fee reduced in proportion to the works carried is a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
    3. maximum repayment period for non-residential leaseholders was 12 months
    4. communication was mostly dealt with in less than 10 working days. It apologised for a delay in replying to 1 email
    5. response to an error in the initial invoice was appropriate.
  2. On 22 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She remained unhappy that the landlord:
    1. did not consult with leaseholders before increasing the management charge
    2. will not consider reducing her management fee to a justifiable amount
    3. discriminated against her by not offering the 12-month repayment schedule referred to in its stage 1 complaint response
    4. timescale of 10 days for replying was too long
    5. only identified the invoicing error after she pointed it out
  3. On 21 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. its decision on the management charge increase was a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
    2. her position on the management charge was a matter for the First Tier Tribunal to consider should she remained unhappy with its explanation
    3. that an offer of a repayment schedule outside the terms of its lease would have required the resident to demonstrate that she had no other viable options to pay the invoice.
    4. that it was considering plans to improve its communication
    5. that it had identified the invoicing error as a result of the resident’s enquiry. It upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  4. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy because the landlord was not being transparent about the management fees. She said that this was an unacceptable amount because when there is a large cost, most of the consultation/management is covered by the contractor.

Determination

  1. The Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After careful consideration of the evidence, this complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. We accept that it has taken the Ombudsman some time to reach this conclusion, and we apologise for any inconvenience this has caused. It was necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the evidence before we could confirm our position on the complaint.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  2. Paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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.
  3. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this matter, she is advised this would fall outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
  4. The resident’s lease sets out that she must pay all service charges that the landlord incurred in the preceding 12 months. The resident may wish to seek legal advice should she wish to challenge the landlord’s policy in recovering leaseholder service charges.