Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Peabody Trust (202310553)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310553

Peabody Trust

28 June 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:

  1. Decisions and actions regarding building safety works, including the necessity and cost.
  2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

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.

After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of the property, for which the landlord is the freeholder. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the resident is required to pay a service charge. The landlord is obliged to, under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, notify the resident of a change to a service charge resulting from works carried out to the building that are necessary and equitable.

In mid-January 2023, the landlord sent the resident a notice of estimates for works it intended to carry out in fulfilment of recommendations from a fire risk assessment. During the 30-day observation period, the resident made objections against the level of works and the cost of them. She also asked the landlord for information, including a copy of the fire risk assessment, and stated her intention to take further action if she was not satisfied the proposed works were necessary and reasonably priced.

On 20 February 2023 the resident lodged a formal complaint with the landlord about the safety works, which she said were inappropriate for the size of her building. She also complained that the costs were too high. Additionally, she said the landlord had not adhered to the 30-day observation window. However, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint through its process until the resident contacted its chief executive on 1 April 2023. She added to her complaint that the standard of the work and materials used were inferior to what was recommended.

The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses, both issued in April 2023, advised it had followed the recommendations of a qualified assessor to bring the building to a “tolerable level of safety”. It said contractors had gone through a competitive tendering process and it had sought value for money. The landlord assured it had adhered to the requirements of the observation period. It disagreed that the quality of the works and materials were a concern. Finally, it apologised for not escalating the resident’s complaint, awarded compensation, and reassured that it had improved its complaint handling.

The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she was unhappy with the landlord’s explanations. She advised she had been caused worry about her service charge increasing because she disputes the amount is reasonable. As an outcome, she said she was seeking to not have to pay the increased service charge.

Reasons

Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in his opinion, concern matters where he considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

The resident is obligated by the terms of her lease to pay a service charge. It is not within the powers of the Ombudsman to disregard the terms of a lease. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) though does have the remit to determine liability for service charges. It is also able to consider the reasonableness of works and charges, as well as whether the consultation process has been adhered to, whereas the Ombudsman lacks the technical expertise to investigate these matters. Because of that this complaint is not one the Ombudsman will investigate. Contact details for the Tribunal can be found on their website.