We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Hackney (202404873)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404873

London Borough of Hackney

30 September 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 response to the resident about service charge arrears.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block.
  2. On 21 September 2020, the landlord says it issued the ‘statement of actual expenditure’ for 2019 to 2020. This said an increase of £558.50 had been applied to the resident’s account. The resident says he did not receive this.
  3. On 17 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said the sum of £558.52 was outstanding on his account and asked for payment within 14 days. It sent further arrears letters on 8 and 29 July 2022 in which it asked him to make payment to avoid further fees and the matter being passed to its solicitor.
  4. The resident visited the landlord’s offices in June 2022 and wrote to it in July and August 2022. He requested explanations about the £558.50, as he had not received any documentation about this such as invoices, before 17 June 2022.
  5. The landlord explained that the arrears related to £558.50 being applied in September 2019 [sic] for the 2019 to 2020 finalised account. It provided some statements for the resident’s account. It offered to provide a more detailed breakdown of charges.
  6. The resident confirmed he would like a more detailed breakdown on 23 August 2022, then contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022 about not being provided this. The landlord responded in early January 2023 to confirm that an itemised breakdown had been internally requested.
  7. The resident raised a complaint on 15 May 2023, after a further arrears letter. He was unhappy that the landlord had not provided information he had requested. He said that he disputed he was in arrears and had disputed the £558.50 since he became aware of it in June 2022.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 May 2023.
    1. It noted that staff had forgotten to supply breakdowns requested in August 2022. It attached a copy of all repairs and services provided in the period 2019 to 2020. It also attached a statement for the service charge account from 2019 to the present.
    2. It said it was unable to remove the £558.50 charge applied in September 2020, as the resident was obligated to pay this under his lease.
    3. It apologised for the poor customer service he had experienced, and awarded £50 in recognition of this.
  9. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response on 9 June 2023. He disputed that the landlord had the right to claim the £558.50, as he had received no documentation about the 2019 to 2020 charges before June 2022. He said the £50 did not reflect his inconvenience and time and trouble.
  10. The landlord provided its final response on 11 July 2023.
    1. It said it was correct in pursuing the resident for £558.50, as this was his share of charges in the 2019 to 2020 ‘statement of actual service charge expenditure’ issued on 21 September 2020. It attached a copy of this and apologised if he had not received this.
    2. It acknowledged and apologised that there had been a delay between August 2022 and May 2023 in the resident being provided a breakdown of repairs and services carried out in the period 2019 to 2020.
    3. It said that the £50 offered at stage 1 was appropriate, but it offered an additional £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused the resident.
  11. The resident paid the arrears on the advice of LEASE but expressed dissatisfaction with the response. He questions if the landlord originally sent the 2019 to 2020 ‘statement of actual service charge expenditure’ in September 2020, as he never received this, it did not contact him about the arrears until June 2022, and it did not supply him the statement until July 2023. He seeks for the Ombudsman to rule that he was not sent the ‘statement of actual service charge expenditure’ until July 2023, that the landlord should reimburse him £558.52, and that it should pay him more than the £100 it offered.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Housing Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property) has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge. The Tribunal can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable; and when.
  2. The Ombudsman can however assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised in the timeframe of his complaint – which this investigation goes on to do.
  3. The evidence shows that on 17 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident about £558.52 arrears on his service charge account, after which he said he was unaware what had led to the arrears. There was subsequently correspondence between him and the landlord in July, August and December 2022, January 2023, and then in May and July 2023 when he complained.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident was supplied unclear information about what had led to the arrears. This includes being told they were applied in September 2019, rather than September 2020. He also experienced lengthy delays receiving breakdowns of the expenditure that had led to the arrears, between August 2022 and May 2023. The landlord was therefore appropriate to acknowledge that the resident had experienced poor customer service and to award £100 total in recognition of his distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. However, while positive, its response was not entirely satisfactory.
  5. The resident’s alleged lack of receipt of the ‘statement of actual expenditure’ for 2019 to 2020, issued on 21 September 2020, is evidently the key reason for the resident’s lack of awareness of the arrears. This was the original final account letter that applied a £558.50 debit to the account, due to the actual costs being more than it had estimated.
  6. The landlord supplied this letter with its July 2023 stage 2 response and apologised if it had not supplied this earlier. However, as this was the original basis for the arrears, this would have been expected to be re-supplied from around July and August 2022, when the resident requested explanation for the £558.50 due to a lack of previous documentation for this. This meant that the landlord delayed in re-supplying the letter by around 11 months. This caused the resident additional frustration, distress and inconvenience. This has also clearly caused him an ongoing lack of confidence about whether the landlord issued the ‘statement of actual expenditure’ for 2019 to 2020 when it says it did.
  7. While the resident says he did not receive the 2019 to 2020 ‘statement of actual expenditure’ in 2020, the Ombudsman cannot on the evidence determine that this was not sent to him on 21 September 2020. We also cannot rule that the landlord should reimburse him £558.52. The resident has the option to contact the First-Tier Tribunal which ultimately has the jurisdiction to determine if the charges are payable.
  8. However, it is not satisfactory that the landlord did not re-supply the 2019 to 2020 ‘statement of actual expenditure’ earlier. It would be expected to be clear about the cause of arrears, when a resident says they have not received prior documentation about them, and this was clearly a key document towards the arrears.
  9. It is also not satisfactory that the landlord did not show it was taking any steps to learn from its failings. Its failing to provide a key document towards the reasons for the arrears would have expected to prompt it to identify appropriate learning and to take steps to improve its future service.
  10. The landlord’s handling has led to avoidable delays, confusion and lack of confidence for the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s view, it did not go far enough to address. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about service charges.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about service charge arrears.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling. This replaces the £100 it offered.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to arrange for a service charges manager to review whether there has been sufficient staff training to respond to service charge arrears queries. This includes reviewing whether staff are sufficiently aware to provide documents such as the ‘statement of actual service charge expenditure’ document related to arrears, when a resident says they have not received prior notice of charges the arrears are for.