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

Southern Housing (202311736)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311736

Southern Housing

14 March 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 the level of service charge set by the landlord for the cyclical works, and whether the standard of work justified these charges.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all circumstances of the case. Sometimes, there are reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After reviewing all the evidence, we have decided that this complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraphs 42.d., 42.f. and 42.o. of the Scheme. Below, we explain the reasons why.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is owned and managed by the landlord.
  2. The lease sets out that the landlord will maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the building’s exterior, common areas, boundary walls, and fences. The lease also says the resident must contribute to the costs for these tasks.
  3. In August 2021 the resident received a section 20 notice outlining the predicted costs for cyclical works that were due to take place. These works started in November 2021.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint in December 2021 as she was unhappy with the poor quality of work delivered by the contractor, the communication from the landlord, and the level of charges associated with the work. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2022 and agreed to provide a breakdown of the costs to the resident.
  5. On 7 March 2022, the resident reiterated her concerns to the landlord. She mentioned that the contractor’s work was poor, the cost estimate was too high, and its response to the issues was ineffective. She said she would wait for the breakdown of costs before pursuing the issues further.
  6. The landlord provided a breakdown of costs was provided in June 2023. The total costs were £32,264.72 of which the resident had to pay 20% (£6,452.94).
  7. On 1 July 2023 the resident repeated her concerns about the level of charges. She said that the cost did not represent value for money, especially considering the quality of work was poor. And that the increase in cyclical work costs from previous years was unreasonable.
  8. The resident reiterated her concerns on 14 July 2023. She highlighted that the landlord had failed to address her complaint that the contractor’s substandard work was being charged at “exorbitant rates”. 
  9. In July 2023 the landlord sent 2 letters explaining their stance on the charges and addressing concerns about the quality of work. On 12 October 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It summarised the case background, apologised for not providing the cost breakdown as promised, and acknowledged communication errors. It also reiterated that its position on the level of the charges remained unchanged from July 2023.
  10. The resident referred her case to us on 1 July 2023 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. On 13 October 2023 she said that the stage 2 complaint response did not address the key aspect of her case which was “the exorbitant cost for the cyclical repairs, made all the more egregious by the poor quality of work done”.
  11. On 4 March 2025 the resident said, as a remedy, she wanted the landlord to impose penalties on the contractor for poor work and lower the total cost from £32,264.72 to around £12,897.57.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in the Service’s opinion, “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
  2. We cannot look at the reasonableness of the charge, or whether the charges and the contract was value for money. These matters usually fall within the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) or a court, which can look at the reasonableness of the charges and their justification. The FTT can also look at whether the works or services are of a reasonable standard and if the costs are good value.
  3. Therefore, the resident’s complaint falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme.
  4. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme says that we may not investigate complaints “where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
  5. While there are elements of the resident’s complaint, such as the communication of the landlord and how it handled reports that the work conducted was poor. Having assessed the evidence we have decided that these concerns are closely linked to the resident’s substantive issue of complaint. This was the high charges made worse by poor work and communication. Our view is that a court or FTT is better placed to consider these issues.
  6. Therefore, the resident’s complaint also falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph’s 42.f. of the Scheme.
  7. Paragraph 42.o. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide”.
  8. As a remedy to her case, the resident has said she would like the overall charge reduced to a fair figure and for the landlord to “penalise” the contractor used. These outcomes are not within our authority to provide. Instead, it would be more effective for the resident to pursue this outcome through a court or the FTT.
  9. Therefore, the resident’s complaint also falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph’s 42.o. of the Scheme.