London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202401518)

Decision
Case ID	202401518
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 January 2026

Background

1. The resident provided evidence to the landlord in March 2023 to confirm that the road had been adopted by the local authority, though it was unable to confirm when the adoption happened. The landlord changed the maps of the areas for grounds maintenance on 5 May 2023. It then updated the mapping for the estate and reduced the grounds maintenance service charges by 20%. The resident was unhappy with the information the landlord provided about the amended service charges. She said the 20% reduction should have been higher given the size of the area that had been adopted by the council.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s queries about the calculation of service charges in relation to an adopted road.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the calculation of service charges in relation to an adopted road.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not provide calculations to explain how it decided the 20% reduction to the service charges for the adopted road.
6. The landlord acknowledged failures in relation to the complaint handling and made an award of compensation for delays, but this was considered low in relation to the issues.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £200. This includes: £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures to provide the information requested by the resident. £50 for complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026
3	Action order The landlord must give the resident a written breakdown of the grounds maintenance costs (and method of calculation) for the updated estate map.	No later than 24 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
01 February 2024	The resident complained that she wanted the new service charges to reflect the correct, updated map. She also wanted a refund of service charges for previous years and said she would be seeking compensation.
16 February 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said amendments to the map of the estate resulted in a 20% decrease to the grounds maintenance costs of the estate. It said it had applied a 20% reduction to the ground’s maintenance costs for the previous 6 years. It provided a table that set out the total refund due of £39.54. It said the refund would be applied within 7 days to the resident’s rent account.
03 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that the landlord had not explained why the mapped area reduced by 80% but the service charge only reduced by 20%. She asked for a detailed explanation by a third party.
07 August 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It said grounds maintenance costs use a schedule of rates based on the total area of vegetation and hard standing. It said the rates were agreed upon during the contract tender process that began in April 2024. It explained the cost per square metre decreases as the size of the area requiring maintenance increases. For the resident’s estate, because the total hard standing area decreased, the rate per square metre increased.
16 August 2024 Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said she contested how the landlord calculated the 20% reduction and asked for a detailed explanation of the figure.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s queries about the calculation of service charges in relation to an adopted road
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

10. We understand that the resident’s underlying concern is the level of service charges. She remains unhappy with the level of reduction in service charge agreed by the landlord. However, we do not investigate complaints about the reasonableness of service charges. A court or First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider the reasonableness or level of charges.
11. The resident raised issues about the sinking fund that have not completed the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 7 August 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
12. The resident asked for a refund of earlier grounds maintenance charges on 4 October 2023. The landlord responded on 10 October 2023 and said it could only amend charges from when it became aware of the adoption. We will not consider issues already determined in our 202208378 decision, though references to the adoption of the road are used for context.

What we did investigate

13. On 1 February 2024, the resident told the landlord’s complaint service that she wanted a refund of service charges for previous years. She also asked for confirmation that new charges reflected the corrected map. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2024. It said:
    1. The grounds maintenance map and contract areas had been amended from 1 April 2023. It said the amendments resulted in a 20% decrease to the costs of providing grounds maintenance to the estate.
    2. It would reconcile the 2023-2024 accounts at year end and issue a final statement reflecting the reduction in grounds maintenance service charges.
    3. It would refund a maximum of 6 years due to the statute of limitations and only for years the resident owned the property. It provided a breakdown table for the previous 6-year refund.
14. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, although it did not explain in detail how it calculated the 20% reduction.
15. The resident replied the same day and said she did not accept the explanation. She asked for a detailed account of how the landlord calculated the 20% reduction. The landlord replied on 3 July 2024 and said contractors used a Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping system that included measurements and produced the 20% reduction. This response did not explain how the reduction was calculated, and the delay in responding was not acceptable, although the landlord apologised.
16. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 3 July 2024. She said the mapped area reduced by 80% and that the landlord had not clearly explained why the service charge reduced by 20%. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. It said the grounds maintenance costs were based on a schedule of rates linked to vegetation and hard standing measurements. It said the rates were agreed for contracts that began in April 2024. It said the cost per square metre decreased when the area needing maintenance increased. It said that because the total hard standing area for the estate decreased, the rate per square metre increased. These responses, though more detailed, did not include the calculations for how the service charges or 20% reduction had been determined.
17. The landlord refunded 20% of the ground’s maintenance costs for the total period the resident lived in the property. It also provided multiple explanations for how it determined the 20% refund figure. However, it did not provide any actual figures (e.g., old vs. new m²), any unit rates, the original charge amount, the new charge amount or the calculation showing how the 20% figure was produced. This is likely what the resident wanted as she clearly wanted a more detailed explanation, and internal emails on 3 July 2024 showed the landlord noted this request. The failure to provide this information meant the resident contacted the landlord repeatedly and subsequently our services for the details needed to assess the accuracy of the reduction.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The resident made a complaint on 1 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 February 2024. This did not comply with the landlord’s complaint policy, which required acknowledgement within 5 working days.
19. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2024. This was 12 working days after the complaint and did not comply with the landlord’s complaint policy requirement of 10 working days. The landlord apologised for the delay within its acknowledgement email on 14 February 2024, although it did not repeat this in its stage 1 response.
20. The resident replied on the same day and said she did not accept the explanation. She asked for a detailed account of how the landlord calculated the 20% reduction. The landlord did not respond to this or to further emails in February or March 2024. This was not acceptable as the landlord should have escalated the complaint and acknowledged the escalation within 5 working days under its policy. The lack of response delayed the resident’s ability to complete the complaints process and caused time and trouble as it required her to repeat requests.
21. The resident escalated the complaint again on 3 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 9 July 2024, which met the policy requirement. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. This was 121 working days after the resident’s first escalation request and 26 working days after the second request. This did not comply with the landlord’s policy, which required a final written decision within 20 working days.
22. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response. It awarded a £40 e-voucher as compensation. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in escalating the case to stage 2 however, and the compensation offered did not adequate recognise the issues identified.

Learning

23. The landlord’s complaints process could have been more effective at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should ensure its current policy and procedure are being applied correctly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. There were no knowledge information management issues identified in this investigation.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication could have been better when responding to the resident’s concerns. On occasion, it did not respond to her contacts at all.