In 2005 and 2007 there were two separate Tribunal cases involving leaseholders on an estate in Hemlington.

The freeholder of that estate is Accent Housing.

The Tribunal ruled in favour of the leaseholders on both occasions. The issues related to both fictitious service charge costs and inflated management fees.

Despite the two rulings by the FTT, Accent continued to present the elevated charges for the next 15 years to all other residents on that estate who were unaware of the ruling despite being aware those charges were incorrect.

This is a serious breach of their fiduciary duty.

This continued until a leaseholder on the estate discovered and revealed the practice in 2019. It was only then did Accent refund the overcharging to leaseholders on that estate. The First Tier Tribunal only permits challenges to service charges going back six years. Accent had knowingly overcharged residents since 2005.

Despite 40% of the refunds being due to inflated service charge costs – which are also paid by their tenants – none of their tenants on the estate received a refund for any of the years.

Having 'fixed' service charges they have no legal rights to reclaim a single penny of that overspend. Accent Housing are legally entitled to retain it which is what they did.

In 2022 Lambert Court took Accent Housing to the First Tier Tribunal for what residents consider financial abuse.

Lambert Court is a shared ownership complex of 27 properties for over 55's. There are many elderly and vulnerable adults on that community, some in their late nineties. Some have safeguarding issues. Many have serious underlying health issues. Most live alone.

In bringing the claim against Accent Housing I attempted to shield residents from the stress of dealing with a court case and the associated protracted arguments. Most residents have enough problems to contend with without being involved in a litigation process.

There was great concern Accent would not honour any future judgements and apply them to other residents not included as respondents. This had been the case on the Hemlington Estate. All residents pay an equal share of costs on the estate and it would clearly be fair that each would receive just compensation.

My concerns were well founded.

Accent Housing would not guarantee any refunds awarded would be applied to any other resident. Existing legislation allows this.

Any other resident seeking refunds would have to approach the First Tier Tribunal separately, including paying all fees involved, and then put their case in order to obtain any refunds on which the FTT had originally ruled.

Accent relied on the fact that a vulnerable group of adults would be reluctant to undergo this process and therefore legally they could retain all overcharging and simply refund the single respondent.

In theory Accent Housing could have refunded a single respondent and retained a balance of £23,111. This is essentially what they did on the Hemlington estate.

I was forced into a position of having to include all residents as named applicants in the case. Many felt unsettled and unsure about what their involvement would be and any legal repercussions. I spent a great deal of time trying to re-assure and explain why they had been pressurised into becoming applicants through the behaviour of Accent Housing.

That letter sent by the leaseholder on the Hemlington Estate finished with one paragraph:

 

'Head' of Homeownership: Robert Bloom