London Borough of Hackney (202402638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402638

London Borough of Hackney

22 July 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 landlord’s:
   1. Communication regarding the resident’s alleged non-payment of service charges.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
3. On 10 January 2024, the landlord sent the resident a service charge arrears reminder letter. The resident made a payment on 16 January 2024. The amount paid did not cover the full amount owed, however, the resident made a further payment on 24 January 2024. The landlord said the payment had not been credited to the account before it sent a further reminder on 25 January 2024.
4. On 12 February 2024 the landlord sent the resident a “letter before action” and the resident made another payment on 14 February 2024. The landlord then sent an email on 11 March 2024 to state that arrears were still outstanding as of 8 March 2024. It said if she did not clear the arrears or make an acceptable agreement by 14 March 2024, then it may refer her case to a solicitor for court proceedings.
5. The resident made a formal complaint on 12 March 2024. She said the landlord had threatened her with court action despite paying her service charges every month and not being in arrears. She said she had called and emailed the landlord and no one was responding to her. She said it was distressing to receive threats of court action when she had done nothing wrong. She said following receipt of the letters she immediately asked for help to understand why it was happening. She referred to a response she had received by the landlord that day. She said the response was incompetent and did not address her queries.
6. The resident said she was 33 weeks into a high risk pregnancy. She said it was an extremely difficult time trying to navigate her pregnancy alongside dealing with threats of court action. She felt the landlord’s treatment of her was cruel and she wanted to know why the landlord was threatening her with court action when she was paying her service charges. She said she would like compensation for the undue distress caused to her.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024 and stated the following:
   1. It said during a telephone conversation with the resident on 27 March 2024, she said to resolve her complaint she would like the landlord to stop sending threatening letters to leaseholders who were paying their service charges. It said she demanded compensation of no less than £500 for the cruel way the landlord had treated her. It acknowledged that she said she was going through a challenging period as a result of her pregnancy.
   2. It acknowledged the further payment she made on 24 January 2024 was not credited to her account before it sent out the second letter dated 25 January 2024. It said in line with its processes, once it had sent 2 arrears letters and if arrears remained, the next action was to send a letter before action which it issued on 12 February 2024. It said the resident made a payment on 18 February 2024 but said her account came up on the list of cases in the run up to year end. It said this prompted the court warning email.
   3. The landlord acknowledged that the resident immediately contacted it and asked for an explanation. It agreed that the response provided to her at the time did not sufficiently address the issue of court action or why she had received the email. It said it would speak to the officer in question and arrange training on how they should resolve such queries in future.
   4. It said the charges were due on the 1st of the month and if the resident did not make the payment on that date, then the account would be in arrears. It said it expected customers to inform it of the date they wish to make a payment and once known it could isolate them from arrears action.
   5. The landlord apologised for any distress caused and said it would review its court warning correspondence and wording. It offered £70 for the failure of its officer to explain the issues properly, which it said could have prevented the distress she experienced.
8. The resident was not happy with the outcome of the complaint. She said the response downplayed the impact on her. She said the experience had significantly exacerbated her high risk pregnancy. The resident said she was petrified that she would lose her home. She said she was subsequently referred to the perinatal mental health team and social services for support. She described the amount of stress caused to her as dangerous. 
9. The resident said it was not true that she demanded £500 in compensation. She said the officer asked her what amount of compensation would satisfactorily resolve the issue and she had responded with £500. She said the offer of £70 felt like a mockery of how the landlord had treated her. She said she would now like £1,500 to resolve the complaint, as it felt like the stage 1 complaint officer had taken a personal attack at her.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 April 2024. It outlined the findings at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said the offer of compensation totalling £70 was reasonable under the circumstances and in line with its compensation policy. It said it did not find that the officer made a personal attack on her. Although, it did apologise for the use of the word ‘demand’ in its stage 1 response and the upset it caused. It agreed that it was not an appropriate word to use while addressing the compensation. The landlord re-offered the £70 and confirmed that the resident’s service charge account was currently in credit.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt the landlord’s responses failed to address how distressing it had been for her. She felt the officer who stated that she had demanded £500 had provided a false statement. She described it as entrapment from a person of authority. She said she wanted the landlord to acknowledge all the reasons why it did not provide her with the correct information regarding when she should pay her service charges. The resident said she wanted an apology from the officer who said she demanded money and more compensation to reflect the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s alleged non-payment of service charges.

13. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in this case which likely caused distress to the resident. It apologised to the resident, offered compensation, and considered what learning it could take from the case. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
14. The resident has stated that prior to January 2024 she always paid her services charges mid-month, in line with her payday. She said the landlord had not made her aware that she should have paid the service charge on the 1st of the month. She felt that the landlord could have easily clarified this. It is reasonable to consider that the landlord’s lack of reminder letters prior to January 2024 would not have managed the resident’s expectations regarding when to pay. However, as per the terms of the lease agreement, the resident was responsible for paying the service charge to the landlord on the 1st day of every month.
15. In an email dated 22 February 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she was confused about the service charges and that she was receiving conflicting information. She asked for someone to call her urgently. She said she was experiencing a high risk pregnancy and did not need the undue stress from the landlord. She asked if someone could talk to her and explain the charges. The landlord responded on 26 February 2024, 2 working days later, it said the letters were issued before she cleared the outstanding balance. It said she should ensure she paid her service charge within each calendar month to ensure her account was up to date.
16. The advice provided on 26 February 2024 differed with the landlord’s position in its complaint responses. Upon reviewing the resident’s prior payments, there were some months, including December 2023, where the resident had not made a payment. This may have been due to a large payment the month before, but it is unclear whether they covered the amount owed for the following month and whether this would have also triggered an arrears letter. Therefore, the response on 26 February 2024 may have been reasonable and the landlord could have considered this in its complaint responses. 
17. Its complaint responses stated that the resident had not advised of an alternative payment date and that was what led to its warning letters. The resident felt that the landlord was blaming her for not notifying it. She said there was no evidence in its correspondence of it advising her that she could do so. The landlord’s service charge letters refer to different dates for paying by direct debit, but it does not clarify what its expectations are regarding dates for those not paying by that method. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to review its wording in all its service charge correspondence and whether more clarity on payment dates is needed.
18. It would have been reasonable upon the resident’s contact with the landlord for it to have clarified all the reasons why she triggered its arrears process. And it was not appropriate that despite her queries, it did not fully do so. The delay in clarifying this, likely caused the resident time and trouble in chasing the landlord. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to uphold the complaint, apologise, and take steps to put things right for the resident.
19. The landlord explained it had a responsibility to always inform and warn its leaseholders if there was any breach that could jeopardise the lease. It was evident that the resident did make payments upon receipt of the letters and it was unfortunate that the payments had not cleared prior to the landlord sending further warnings. However, this would not be a failing by the landlord. It was appropriate for the landlord to clarify the process in its stage 1 response. And it is positive to hear that the landlord has since recorded the resident’s preferred payment date, and she has not received any further letters.
20. The resident felt that the landlord had disregarded the impact that its poor correspondence had had on her. She said she informed the landlord on more than one occasion that she was currently undergoing a high risk pregnancy and of the impact on her mental health. While we can empathise with the resident’s situation at the time, as already stated, we cannot award financial redress for or consider whether the landlord’s actions had an impact on her health. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was going through a challenging period as a result of her pregnancy. It also appropriately apologised for any distress caused to the resident and offered compensation in recognition of it.
21. The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt a minimum of £500 compensation reflected the distress caused to her. It explained that in line with its compensation guidance, £70 compensation would be more appropriate and reflected the level of fault in her case. Compensation guidance such as the one utilised by the landlord can be helpful in ensuring consistency and fairness across each individual complaint. In this case, the landlord reasonably outlined how it had reached its decision to offer £70 and how it was in line with its failings and guidance. As such, we would not award further compensation. 
22. As stated earlier, reasonable redress by a landlord is not just its offer of compensation, it is whether it was fair, put things right, and learnt from its outcomes. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged there were service failings which led to distress. It identified the reasons for its failure and told the resident what it had done to address them. It took steps to put things right by apologising to the resident and offering compensation. The landlord has also demonstrated that it has taken adequate points of learning from the complaint, such as additional training for the officer in question and reviewing its court warning correspondence.
23. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s alleged non-payment of service charges.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

24. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she felt the landlord had downplayed the impact on her. She referred to the stage 1 complaints officer and that they had said she “demanded” £500 in compensation. The resident said that was false information as the officer had asked her what amount of compensation she would like. She said they had also later written that she “requested” the £500.
25. The resident said the investigating officer blamed the cyber attack and incorrectly referenced that she had arrears. She felt the inconsistency was reflective of a poor investigation into the matter and she was not confident that changes would happen. The resident said she would like £1,500 to end the complaint as she felt the complaints officer had “chosen violence” and “took a personal attack” on her.
26. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the upset caused to the resident and agreed that the word “demand” was not an appropriate word to use while addressing the compensation issue. It said it did not find evidence to support that the officer had personally attacked the resident.
27. The resident has stated to this Service that the landlord did not respond to her point that the complaints officer had initially asked her to suggest a compensation amount. She said that the officer then described it as a demand from her, which she felt was entrapment. She said the landlord could have verified it with the officer in question and its failure to acknowledge it in its response meant the stage 2 was incomplete.
28. In reviewing the information provided by the landlord, it has evidenced that it contacted the officer in question to provide their comments on the allegations. The officer’s version of events was that the resident demanded monetary compensation, they said they then asked her what amount of money she was seeking, in which she replied a “minimum of £500”. The officer said that they did not understand the use of the word violent by the resident and felt they had a cordial conversation. They said they did not blame the cyber attack but referred to difficulties experienced as a result of it.
29. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed to the resident that it had spoken to the officer as part of its investigation into her complaint. This may have reassured her that it had taken proportionate action.
30. Given the 2 slightly different accounts of the conversation, this Service cannot conclusively determine how the conversation went or favour one account over the other. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the information it did have, and it agreed with the resident about the use of the word “demand”. This shows it had considered her concerns and the impact on her.
31. The resident has stated that to put things right she would like an apology from the complaints officer. As per our remedies guidance, we cannot make orders against individual staff members. The landlord did apologise in the stage 2 response, which was reasonable.
32. The resident also requested further compensation due to feeling personally attacked. While the Ombudsman appreciates it was a distressing time for the resident, we cannot conclude that the resident was personally attacked by the stage 1 response. As such, we would not order further compensation for this.
33. Taken altogether, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We recommend that the landlord reviews its quality checking processes when responding to complaints. As, alongside the issues with wording, the responses included some incorrect dates. While this has not impacted the outcome of the investigation on this occasion, it did cause the resident to question its thoroughness of it.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Communication regarding the resident’s alleged non-payment of service charges.
    2. Handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

35. If it has not already done so, the landlord should review the wording in its service charge correspondence. This should be particularly around payment dates for those who are not paying via direct debit and whether more clarity on payment dates is needed.
36. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its quality checking processes when responding to complaints.
37. If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord re-offer the £70 it offered in its final response.