Reply To: To refer or not?

#8491
Anonymous
Guest

It is correct I think to load 100% of the service costs onto the claimant (whether they are reasonable costs is a separate question, but 100% of the reasonable cost I would go along with).

Shared ownership is in effect a long lease under which the claimant pays for any services provided by the landlord, plus rent on a notional share of the accommodation. When the claimants bought the 32% stake, they did not buy the right to receive 32% of future services free. What they bought was a stake in the property, but they will still have to pay for the services they receive.

So I wouldn’t view the rent as unreasonably high purely because it includes the full cost of services. But it sounds as if maybe you aren’t convinced that the service charge is reasonable for what it covers – that is another matter and you would be justified in referring to the RO if you didn’t like the look of it.