A 63-year-old Parkinson’s sufferer is set to take her landlord to tribunal for the third time in two years after her service charge was hiked again despite the previous rulings in her favour. West Londoner Adriana Schwab said Housing for Women hiked her monthly service charge to £99 without proper explanation and claims many of the services aren’t being provided.
Housing for Women said it is working with Miss Schwab to resolve the matter “fairly and transparently” and will meet later this month. As a result Miss Schwab, a retired accountant who moved from Slovakia to the UK 25 years ago, has paused the legal proceedings but will pursue it through a tribunal again if the charges are not reduced in line with the previous rulings.
If they remain as they are, she fears she’ll have to survive next winter without heating. Miss Schwab told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “It’s nearly £100 more than I used to pay two years ago, per month, so of course it is quite a lot. I am already thinking how I will survive without electricity and ok, now summer is coming, but winter will come.
“Parkinson’s very much reacts to all, like if it is too hot or too cold. It increases the symptoms so I have to have heating otherwise I’m trembling. I have no idea how I will survive. It’s panic. I am so stressed, I took medication and it doesn’t work.”
Miss Schwab said her service charge jumped from £26 a month in 2021 to at least £61 in 2022 – an increase of 134pc. When she complained, Housing for Women sent six different version of her service charge bill varying between £61 and £75.
The charge for her basement flat in Philbeach Gardens, Earl’s Court dipped in 2023 before rising again by £16 in 2024 and by £25 in 2025. Miss Schwab’s rent, which is roughly £550 a month, has also risen, albeit at a slower pace.
Despite taking the housing association to the property tribunal on two separate occasions, and winning both times, she said she is still being charged incorrectly. Documents seen by the LDRS appear to show Housing for Women based Miss Schwab’s charges for 2024/25 off those the tribunal already ruled as being unfair.
Housing for Women said this year’s service charges are based on last year’s costs. It said budgeted costs are reconciled with actual costs six months after the financial year ends and it reimburses any difference to Miss Schwab.
But the long-time tenant has questioned this. She said: “I literally thought the bill was just a mistake. You know, it was lockdown, and we were all working from home.
“[I said] ‘you have a mistake there, check it’. They sent a version – a different amount – but still over £60. It was still not correct.”
Miss Schwab claims Housing for Women is now refusing to share the accounts and claim they no longer hold records before 2021 due to a change in accounting systems. She claims the housing association began charging residents for Legionella testing but only focused on taps in the utility room. She also claimed groundsmen were being paid hundreds of pounds to sweep the building’s small communal garden but had failed to visit for nine months.
She also said residents were being unfairly charged for fox traps on a monthly basis. When she approached Housing for Women, she claims they apologised and offered to credit her account.
Miss Schwab, who has lived in her flat since 2014, said: “We met with them in their offices and they gave us some credits, so it was ok. I accepted it. I go, ‘ok, they got it’. Next year came, £70. I said, ‘that’s no mistake’. It was deliberate. I said ‘prove to me your costs went up three-fold and I will pay it’ and [I heard] nothing.”
Miss Schwab was at one point sent six different versions of her service charge bill for 2021/2022. She took Housing for Women to the first-tier property tribunal and won.
A summary of the case shows Housing for Women did not attend the hearing. When the 63-year-old took them to tribunal a year later for the same reason, Housing for Women did not engage in the process, case documents show.
The housing association also submitted a copy of Miss Schwab’s tenancy agreement which appeared to blank out sections showing how it estimates service charges, what they cover, and its responsibility to provide tenants with a breakdown of costs and estimates upon request. The LDRS was able to verify this by reviewing a copy of Miss Schwab’s original tenancy agreement.
Housing for Women told the LDRS it had submitted the wrong tenancy agreement to the tribunal. It said the mistake was unacceptable but is confident it will not happen again. It said staff who sent the agreement no longer work for the association.
Miss Schwab’s neighbour Rachel said service charges appear to be increased “underhandedly”. She claimed: “I think they say they want to raise service charges because they need to fill up their kitty.”
The 71-year-old said living in her flat for 30 years has been a privilege but felt staff at Housing for Women could be difficult to deal with. Her partner Dennis, 73, said: “It’s uncomfortable to complain to them. It’s also difficult because you can’t get a hold of anyone.”
Kensington and Chelsea councillor for Earl’s Court, Linda Wade, who has been helping Miss Schwab with her case, said housing associations lack accountability and hide behind legal exemptions.
She said under Section 21 of the Tenants and Landlord Act 1985, landlords are required to provide accounts within six months of a request or face criminal charges. However she said social housing providers, like Housing for Women, are exempt.
She said: “They’re actually failing and it’s consistent. They’ve failed to maintain, or have a structured plan for refurbishments or cyclical maintenance over the years… There is no way robust enough to be able to sanction them.”
Cllr Wade said it was clear Housing for Women hadn’t learnt its lessons. She said: “It comes back to accountability. It comes back to that key point that they feel they’re in a Teflon environment and so even though it’s been pointed out in a very systematic, logical way, they haven’t changed their methodology.”
A Housing for Women spokesperson said: “In respect of the ongoing case with Miss Schwab, mediation is scheduled for April 23 to discuss aligning her 2024/25 service charge with the 2023/24 First Tier Tribunal findings. We have received two adverse judgements from the Tribunal, which found the costs unreasonable, and in both instances, we have refunded Miss Schwab.
“Throughout this process, we have maintained open communication with Miss Schwab, including meeting with her at our head office to review her statements. We are committed to treating all residents and stakeholders with respect, with the aim of achieving the best possible outcome for all parties, including where there is a dispute or complaint.
“It is disappointing to see that the tenancy document presented to the First Tier Tribunal was not the original, as it should have been. This is unacceptable and should not have happened, and we have reviewed our processes to ensure this does not recur.
“We can, however, confirm that neither the outcome from the First Tier Tribunal nor Miss Schwab’s tenancy rights have been affected. We remain committed to working with Ms Schwab to resolve her concerns and reach a satisfactory outcome.”
The spokesperson added that Housing for Women does not profit from service charges. Instead they “reflect the costs we pay to contractors who provide these services”.
They added: “We constantly review our processes to ensure service charges are more accurately aligned with service quality and actual costs. When we set service charges for the year and share them with residents, we encourage them to contact us straight away with any concerns or questions. We also provide a frequently asked questions sheet to help explain their charges.
“Our Housing Team works hard to resolve issues fairly and openly, and most concerns are addressed during this process. Additionally, we use regular communications to remind and encourage residents to get in touch if they have any concerns about their service charges.”
