Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Sovereign Network Homes (202222809)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202222809

 

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

 

3 April 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of service charges for the property.

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.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The resident purchased the property on 30 May 2022. The landlord owns 60% of the property and the resident is a leaseholder of the landlord under a shared ownership scheme.

 

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 September 2022 with the service charge statement for the period 1 April 2021 – 31 March 2022. This stated that there was a deficit and a debit adjustment of £643.01 would be applied to the resident’s account at the end of September 2022. It wrote to him again on 8 November 2022 to say there had been an error in the calculation and the correct deficit figure was £639.31.

 

  1. On 23 September 2022 the resident queried his liability for the charges as it related to a period before he purchased the property. On 4 October 2022 the landlord told the resident to check with his solicitor whether any retention was held back from the seller to cover a possible deficit. On 10 October 2022 the resident’s solicitor confirmed that a £200 retention for service charges was taken from the seller on completion, and that any further charges would be the resident’s responsibility.

 

  1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 23 December 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 January 2023 in which it said his solicitor should have explained the liability during the conveyancing process.

 

  1. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated the same day. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 January 2023 in which it maintained that the resident was liable for the charges. It signposted him to the Leasehold Advisory Service. The resident remained unhappy and asked this Service to investigate on 10 January 2023.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42 (f) of the 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.

 

  1. The resident’s complaint is regarding his liability for service charges for the period before he purchased the property. The First Tier Tribunal assesses resident’s liability to pay service charges. It would consider whether the resident is liable to pay service charges relating to the period in question.