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

Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202302532)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302532

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

27 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns raised about the service charge.

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 and the property is a house.

 

  1. The resident first contacted the landlord regarding the service charge in March 2022 following the transfer of her property to the landlord as part of a stock transfer. The resident told the landlord that she was unsure what she was paying the service charge for. The landlord met the customer at the property in April 2022 to discuss the charge. 

 

  1. The resident however remained dissatisfied and continued to contact the landlord over the next few months in relation to the service charge in particular the ground maintenance charge and what service this was for. 

 

  1. On 28 November 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord (via the Ombudsman) regarding the service charge. She disputed that she should have to pay the service charge particularly for the upkeep of communal areas when she lived in a house.

 

  1. On 20 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. Within this the landlord explained that as her service charge was variable, it used the actual cost of providing services from the previous years to estimate the cost of the services to be provided in the coming financial year to keep her building and grounds in good condition. It gave information about charges for grounds maintenance for 2022/23 and said any difference between the estimate and actual cost would be credited to her account at the end of the financial year. The landlord said the resident was due a credit of £140.59 from the actuals for 2020/21 and it offered £150 in compensation in recognition that she had had cause to complain about historical service charges. 

 

  1. In her communications to the landlord dated 26 January 2023 and 1 February 2023, the resident said she was unhappy with its response. She said it did not explain what ground maintenance she and other residents living in the row of houses on the estate were paying for. She said should not have to pay for ground maintenance as she did not live in a block.

 

  1. In its final complaint response dated 24 February 2023, the landlord said it had investigated her complaint and concluded that the resident should be contributing towards the upkeep of the estate through the service charge mechanism as per the terms of her tenancy.

 

  1. The resident told this Service on 20 April 2023 that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response as it had failed to give a valid reason as to why she had to pay a service charge when she lived in a house. The resident said she should not have to pay the service charge as she was not receiving a service from the landlord.

 

  1. In her communications to this Service dated 26 April 2023 and 17 January 2024, the resident reiterated that the outcome she was seeking was for the landlord to cancel the service charge.

Reasons

  1. Under paragraphs 42(d) and 42(o) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge or complaints that concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.

 

  1. It is clear from the resident’s correspondence with the landlord that the main focus of her complaint concerns the level and reasonableness of the service charge and her liability for this charge.

 

  1. The appropriate body to determine these issues is the First Tier Tribunal which have the authority and expertise to consider the reasonableness of the service charge as well as the resident’s liability for the service charge.

 

  1. It is also evident from the resident’s communications with this Service that she seeks for the landlord to cancel the service charge. This is not an outcome the Ombudsman can require the landlord to provide.

 

  1. For these reasons this is not a complaint that the Ombudsman will investigate.