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

Midland Heart Limited (202307288)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307288

Midland Heart Limited

5 March 2025


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it had been charging her service charges, that she had not agreed to, dating back to 2011.

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 an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 14 December 1992. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house.

 

  1. On 30 March 2023, the resident called the landlord to say that she had opted out of the ground’s maintenance charge in 2011, however, she had been paying it for years and wanted it removed. The resident said that she believed the landlord was illegally charging her for a service she did not want and did not receive.

 

  1. On 6 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident following her call on 30 March 2023. The landlord confirmed that a service charge was introduced in 2011 for a grounds maintenance contractor to maintain the site.

 

  1. The resident contacted us on 30 May 2023 to say that in 2011 the landlord carried out a door-to-door survey asking if residents would be interested in it providing services and maintenance works which would be paid for by residents in the form of Service Charges. The resident said that at that time she refused the offer in person and sent a letter to the landlord opting out of any additional services to be provided by the landlord which would incur a service charge.

 

  1. Following the resident’s contact on 30 May 2023, we wrote to the landlord asking that it provide the resident with a response to her complaint about disputed service charges and that she would like these taken off her account. We also noted that the resident would like the landlord to refund her charges back to 2011.

 

  1. In its complaint responses the landlord explained that prior to 2011 some of its ground’s maintenance charges had been subsidised. The landlord said that it carried out an ‘extensive’ consultation at that time with residents before introducing the new services, and the majority were in favour. The landlord noted that the resident had said that she was unaware that she paid these charges. However, letters were sent out annually which provided a breakdown of the rent and service charge.

 

  1. The resident referred her complaint to us on 20 July 2023. The resident said that she opted out of the ground’s maintenance charge in 2011. The resident said that she had asked that the charges be removed and refunded back to 2011.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.

 

  1. As the resident’s complaint, about the introduction of service charges in 2011, was not made until early 2023, and significantly more than 12 months after the matter arising, this complaint is outside of the scope of this investigation under 42(c) of the Scheme.

 

  1. Even if that had not been the case, this complaint would still not be one that we could consider. This is because under Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme we cannot review complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

 

  1. If the resident paid a variable charge, the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) could make determinations on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge. This includes who should pay the charge and to whom the payment should be made, how much should be paid and when this is payable. In order to decide liability a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and, if so, whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable.

 

  1. As it is our understanding that the resident pays a fixed charge the above matters would need to be considered by a court.

 

  1. Regardless of whether the resident is able to pursue her concerns with the FTT or a court, we cannot consider her complaint in this case as it falls outside of our jurisdiction under both Paragraph 42(c) and 42(d) of the Scheme.