Town and Country Housing (202444522)

Decision
Case ID	202444522
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Town and Country Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared owner
Date	21 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a first floor 1 bedroom flat and has a shared ownership lease. The lease is for a term of 199 years and started in September 2021. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at a change in service charge amount and payment frequency. She also told the landlord she intended to sell and asked for help with this.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge liability concerns.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about selling the property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge liability concerns is outside jurisdiction.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about selling the property.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made any orders.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge liability concerns

Legal proceedings were issued at court regarding the issue of service charge liability, which cannot be separated from the substance of the complaint. This means we cannot investigate this complaint under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“our Scheme”).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about selling the property

The landlord offered reasonable and prompt advice to the resident in response to her queries. It showed a consistent and genuine willingness to help by offering to defer fees until completion of the sale.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was a short delay of 2 working days in dealing with the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process which had no adverse effect on her.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 December 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that her contract with the landlord referred to a monthly service charge of £15.58 but she had now received a demand from a property debt company for £4167.65 in unpaid service charge. The resident disputed this as she said she paid the monthly sum in line with her and the landlord’s sale agreement. She said she would not have bought the property had she been aware the service charges were higher.
27 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response under its complaint procedure and did not uphold the complaint. It said the resident signed a deed of covenant to pay service charges directly to the management company, 6 months in advance in line with the lease between the landlord, developer, management company and the Homes and Communities Agency (“superior lease”). The landlord said the deed of covenant is the overriding document in relation to service charges. It offered the resident in November 2022 a payment of £527.11 as a ‘recognition payment’ to acknowledge that it did not make the resident aware that she had to pay service charges 6 months in advance rather than monthly. The landlord said it told the resident between August 2024 and September 2024 what the sale process was and offered to defer the cost of the valuation fees, the landlord’s solicitor’s costs, and any nomination or administration fee until completion to try and help.
27 December 2024	The resident escalated the complaint and said the landlord should have informed her of the effect of the deed of covenant, and her contract was with the landlord only. The resident said she felt the landlord had applied bullying tactics to get residents to pay a higher service charge every 6 months. The resident questioned the legitimacy of the deed of covenant. The resident refused the recognition payment as she disputed she owed any monies.
29 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response under its complaint policy and acknowledged the concerns that no other party signed the deed of covenant. It also acknowledged the original contract referenced monthly payments. The landlord said the deed of covenant is a legally binding document and required residents to pay service charges directly to the management company. The landlord added that this document overrode the terms of the original purchase agreement. The landlord said the resident needed to sign the deed of covenant as a requirement of the sale and recommended the resident contact her solicitor for a copy. It said it provided clarification in November 2022 that she had to pay the service charges 6 months in advance. It added that the managing company should have told her about changes in their details. It was willing to make the ‘recognition payment’ it offered and was willing to defer any fees relating to the sale of the property until after completion. It also agreed to work with the management company on the resident’s behalf if the resident wanted this, and mentioned its budgeting service. It said it was concerned about the allegation of bullying tactics and asked for evidence of this if this was on the part of the landlord.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she disputed the service charges and wanted these written off and wants the landlord to allow her to pay these monthly and her adverse credit rating changed. The resident also wanted us to look at the landlord’s response to her queries about selling.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge liability concerns
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We cannot investigate issues which are also subject to legal proceedings or where matters at court are connected so closely to the complaint, they cannot be separated. In this case, legal proceedings were issued at court on 12 June 2025. The management company issued proceedings against the resident. The matters at court relate to the resident’s service charge liability, the amount of which the resident disputes. We cannot separate the resident’s complaint from the issues in those legal proceedings. This is because as part of those proceedings the court would consider the resident’s obligations under her lease and the deed of covenant.
It would be open to the resident to raise issues regarding the landlord’s conduct and communication at court. We would be unable to investigate the complaint without inquiring into and deciding on substantially the same matters, issues, and facts as the court would. That means we have no power to investigate the complaint under our Scheme.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about selling the property.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident told the landlord on 26 March 2024 that she needed to sell the property, and she asked the landlord if it could help with the surveyor’s fees. The landlord responded promptly on 4 April 2024. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer to obtain a valuation on the resident’s behalf. It was also appropriate of the landlord to tell the resident what forms and items it needed to process the sale, as well as what its fees and process was. The landlord provided the resident with information and offered to defer payment of the surveyor’s fees until she sold the property. This showed a willingness to help the resident.
In August 2024 when the resident asked if she could rent her flat out and when she asked for advice on her housing options the landlord provided prompt advice days later. When the resident asked in September 2024 if she could pay any of the landlord’s fees out of the completion sale monies the landlord promptly agreed. It also informed the resident of its budgeting service and told her what the fees she needed to pay separately to the management company were. The landlord’s actions showed a consistent and genuine attempt to help the resident in her request to sell. We have found no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy in line with our Complaint Handling Code (“our Code”). It must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. It took the landlord 6 working days to respond at stage 1 of its complaint process (27 December 2024) from when the resident complained (16 December 2024). This was in line with our Code and its policy. It took it 22 working days to respond at stage 2 (29 January 2025) from when she escalated her complaint (27 December 2024). This was a short delay and there was no evidence this adversely effected the resident, therefore we have found no maladministration.

Learning

The landlord’s communications were clear and prompt, there were no record keeping issues. Its complaint handling was good, with only a short delay in it responding at stage 2 of its complaint process which had no adverse effect.