From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Onward Homes Limited (202302512)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302512

Onward Homes Limited

23 April 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The level and increase of service charges.
    2. The landlord’s handling of requests for information about service charges.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a block of flats managed by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised his complaint on 23 May 2023. He said the landlord had significantly increased his service charges and had not provided an adequate breakdown.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 June 2023. It said it attended a scheme meeting on 18 April 2023 to explain the service charge increase to residents. It said:
    1. From 1 April 2023 there was an increase in rent and service charges. It understood the concerns and had tried to balance the increases with rising costs and capped rent increases to 7% that year. It had applied a £50 cap to the overall service charge increase.
    2. Fixed charges for energy prices ended in October 2022 and it had seen prices increase by 600% compared to 2019. It protected customers from higher bills by subsidising the increase during October 2022 and March 2023.
    3. The costs of the communal boiler were split across all properties. As such it was unable to provide copies of bills for the building. It explained its costs were based on what had been used for the previous 12 months.
  3. The resident raised queries following the landlord’s stage 1 response in June 2023. He asked questions about the gas provider, why communal and personal gas had increased and why the landlord was unable to provide energy bills for the building. He contacted the landlord for a response throughout July and August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 October 2023. It said:
    1. It was trying to obtain the information required to answer the questions and concerns raised. Due to the complexity of the case and the information requested there was a delay. It apologised for not keeping the resident updated and offered £100 compensation for this.
    2. It repeated how it had attended meetings to explain the impact of utility cost increases. It explained that it had applied a cap of £50 to the overall service charge increase and was subsidising all properties within the building at £20.90 per week.
    3. It was unable, and not required, to provide bills for the building. It explained that it worked with a broker to manage supply and the building appeared as one line in a large spreadsheet.
    4. It had not added a management fee to utility increases to ensure it was not profiteering. In response to a query about service charge increase above the consumer price index (CPI), it explained that it recovered actual costs rather than following CPI.
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to consider his complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and can not consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint he raised concerns about an increase in service charge payments and said his gas charges had significantly increased. The resident has said he would like the landlord to reduce his service charges to an affordable amount.
  3. Paragraph 42d of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
    1. Concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  4. The Ombudsman can not determine whether service charges are reasonable in themselves or if they are at a reasonable level. After careful consideration of the information available, the resident’s complaint about the level and increase of service charges is outside of jurisdiction.
  5. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice and the Courts may be better placed to consider issues relating to the setting and reasonableness of service charges.

Handling of requests for information about service charges

  1. The tenancy agreement explains the weekly service charges. It says, regardless of fixed or variable service charges, residents have a right to see how service charges are “made up” and, if requested, it will provide a summary of costs. It says residents may ask to see accounts, receipts or other papers within 6 months of receiving the summary.
  2. The landlord has said the service charges for the property were fixed. It is accepted that it increased service charges in April 2023.
  3. In May 2023, the resident asked the landlord for a breakdown of the service charges. In response the landlord said it was unable to provide copies of bills and that costs were based on what had been used for the previous 12 months. The landlord failed to explain why it was unable to provide more information at that time. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  4. On 21 June 2023 the resident asked why the landlord was unable to provide information about the energy bills for the building. Throughout June and August 2023 he continued to ask it to respond to his queries. The landlord took until 9 October 2023 (around 4 months) to respond. The timeframe of almost 4 months to respond to queries about service charges was not reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. Within its response from October 2023, the landlord said it was unable to and “not required” to provide bills for the building. Here, it missed opportunities to explain why it was not required to provide bills for the building, if that was the case. It also failed to acknowledge that its approach was not in line with what it said within its tenancy agreement. This was not appropriate.
  6. It is important to explain that it is not the role of this Service to determine whether the service charges were in fact fixed or variable. Instead, this Service has considered what the landlord said it would do within its tenancy agreement and whether it acted in line with this. When considering the evidence available, the landlord did not provide information to show how the service charges were “made up” and it did not respond to queries within a reasonable time. As such the landlord’s handling of requests for information about service charges was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
  7. It is accepted that the resident may have been caused some frustration with the landlord’s failure to provide information to show how service charges were “made up”. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately apologised for its delays and offered £100 compensation. While this was a positive step, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not provided information to show how the service charges were “made up” and it did not consider what else it could provide in the circumstances. While it did acknowledge its delay in responding, it remains unclear if it has responded to the resident’s queries in full. When considering this, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation did not go far enough to recognise the impact of its failings. As such a greater compensation amount of £250 has been decided as more appropriate in the circumstances. The amount of £250 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42d of the Scheme, the complaint about the level and increase of service charges is outside of jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for information about service charges.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount includes £100 it previously offered if this has not been paid already.
    3. To contact the resident to confirm if there are any outstanding queries relating to service charges, limited to those issues covered within this report. If there are, the landlord should consider its tenancy agreement when responding and provide a copy of its response to this Service.