Tower Hamlets Homes (202205210)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205210

Tower Hamlets Homes

19 August 2022

 

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 resident’s complaint is about major works carried out at the resident’s building, specifically:
    1. The landlord has failed to fulfil its obligations under Sections 19 and 20 of the Landlord Tenant Act.
    2. The scope of the repairs expended after work began and the landlord did not carry out further consultations.
    3. The resulting costs for major works are not reasonable and cannot legally be recharged to leaseholders.

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 is leaseholder of the landlord which undertook major work on their building in 2019/20.
  2. On 1 November 2021, the resident lodged a complaint with the landlord stating that the service charge costs were unreasonable and that the landlord had not consulted resident’s when the scope of the major works expanded after it had issued section 20 notification in respect of this work. The resident argued that  the landlord had failed to fulfil its obligations under section 19 and 20 of the Landlord Tenant Act, therefore it could not charge them for the cost of work.
  3. The landlord issued its final response on 9 March 2022 and addressed all the resident’s queries under separate headings. The landlord concluded that there had been a significant increase in the major works charges in comparison to the estimated amount advised under the Section 20 of the consultation process because the scope of works had been expanded when it found that other associated works were required. The landlord stated it should have informed leaseholders of the additional works and the associated increase in costs and apologised for this. The landlord further stated that the additional works were required and were within the scope of the works and that therefore it could not cap leaseholders’ charges for the additional work at £250.00 as requested by the resident. The landlord referred the resident to the Ombudsman should they remain dissatisfied with its final response to the complaint.
  4. On 12 June 2022, the resident brought their complaint to the Ombudsman, stating that the additional work was not within the landlord’s original section 20 notice, that it had an obligation to carry out further consultation and reissue a section 20, that the cost of major works is unreasonable and, that as the landlord has not complied with its statutory obligation to consult, leaseholders should be charged the statutory rate for the major works or be given the opportunity to scrutinise the major works.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate 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 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. The complaint concerns whether or not the landlord has complied with its obligations under sections 19 and 20 of the Landlord Tenant Act 1985 and, therefore, whether it can recharge the cost of work to residents. The residents also complained that the charges the landlord wished to bring were too high.
  4. This Service cannot issue a binding decision about whether or the landlord has complied with its statutory responsibilities, whether costs can legally be recharged to leaseholders, nor whether costs are reasonable.  Such complaints are a matter for the Courts or First Tier Tribunal to consider, therefore the Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint.