London Borough of Havering Council (202328972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328972

London Borough of Havering Council

24 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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 1st floor of a sheltered accommodation scheme (the scheme). The resident occupies the flat with his wife.
As part of the tenancy agreement the resident pays the landlord service charges in addition to his rent. These include charges for services such as sheltered housing management, cleaning, and maintenance.
On 7 October 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He felt the level of rent he paid was unfair when compared to other properties in the area. The resident said the cleaners spent significantly less time at the scheme and grounds maintenance had not been carried out since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID-19). He asked the landlord to consider a reduction in the charges he paid for these services. He
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 21 October 2021. It declined the resident’s request for a reduction and said:
1. it had increased sanitisation during COVID-19 and installed new sanitising dispensers throughout its schemes
2. its grounds maintenance service was impacted by COVID-19 and adverse weather, but it was doing its best to get this back on track
3. it would not consider the points raised about rent discrepancies as it had responded to these in a previous complaint which was closed
4. the service charges were an accurate representation of the costs incurred and it reviewed them annually
The landlord has confirmed that the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its internal process on 22 November 2021, but it declined to do so. We have not seen a copy of this original request. However, we have seen a copy of the resident’s email dated 5 June 2024 in which he asked the landlord to refund him for the services it had not provided during COVID-19. The resident said this included access to the communal lounge, grounds maintenance, estate environmental services, scheme officer support, and communal cleaning. He also raised concerns about duplicate charges and delays in responding to his complaint.
Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2024. It declined to refund the service charges he paid during COVID-19 and said:
1. the communal lounge had been shut to comply with COVID-19 restrictions but there was no additional charge in the rent for access to this area
2. grounds maintenance, such as grass cutting and leaf clearance continued, and it provided details of the dates this took place
3. estate environmental services, such as jet washing of bin areas, resumed as normal after COVID-19
4. scheme officers had continued to support residents, although site visits were limited to prevent the spread of infection
5. communal cleaning was carried out and it provided details of attendances
6. it was unable to identify any duplicate payments in the resident’s rent and service charge account

The landlord upheld the resident’s concerns about its handling of the complaint and admitted it handled the original escalation request incorrectly. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £150 compensation. It noted it had previously offered £50 on 23 May 2024 which brought the total compensation to £200.

The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the outcome. He said the service charges he incurred during COVID-19 were unjustified and he remained unhappy with how the landlord handled his complaint. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted a refund of the service charges and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the reasonableness of the service charges for the level of service the landlord provided and his request for a reduction or a refund. According to the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the level of increase. This means our investigation focused on whether the level of service the landlord provided was reasonable in all circumstances and whether it responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately. If the resident remains unhappy with the level of rent or service charges, he may wish to seek independent advice.
In his communication with this Service, the resident said he requested information about the furlough payments the landlord paid its staff during COVID-19. This was not part of the complaint considered by the landlord and since it has not exhausted its complaints procedure, it is not something we can investigate. It is also important to note the Ombudsman may not consider issues which concern terms of employment or personnel issues.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges

The tenancy agreement confirms service charges are payable, but it does not say whether they are fixed or variable. The landlord has told us the charges are variable, and it increases them annually from 1 April, based on costs incurred for the provision of services. However, the resident has confirmed to us his understanding is that the charges are fixed. We have also seen a copy of a notice from the First Tier Tribunal dated 22 November 2023 confirming it had no jurisdiction in respect of an application from the resident for a determination on the payability of fixed service charges in a secure tenancy. The resident has also confirmed he has never been asked to pay more or received a refund at any point throughout the year, which is typical of fixed service charges. We have therefore considered the complaint on the basis the charges are fixed.
Our website provides guidance for residents and landlords about handling rent and service charges. It says landlords must be able to provide clear information about a charge that is payable and explain whether it’s fixed or variable. We have not seen any evidence the landlord has communicated this to the resident. Therefore, it failed to provide sufficient information about the charges.
On 7 October 2021 the resident told the landlord the cleaner spent less time at the scheme and the grounds had not been maintained since the start of COVID-19. In response to these concerns, the landlord explained it had increased the sanitisation and installed new equipment to help prevent the spread of infection. It admitted the grounds maintenance had been affected by COVID-19 combined with periods of adverse weather and it would arrange for its operatives to attend as soon as possible. It was reasonable the landlord explained to the resident why the services were affected. However, it did not address the resident’s specific concerns about the frequency of cleaning and maintenance which was a failing in its communication.
As part of its stage 2 response dated 2 August 2024 the landlord sent the resident its communal cleaning schedule for the period between March 2020 and December 2020. The landlord explained it had to remove sign in books to prevent the spread of infection, however it confirmed the cleaners were on site on the days indicated. The landlord also provided the resident with the dates its operatives carried out grounds maintenance between April 2020 and November 2021. It has therefore demonstrated it continued to provide these services during COVID-19, which was reasonable. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided this detail when the resident raised his concerns in October 2021.
In addition to grounds maintenance, there is also a charge for estate environmental services. The landlord explained this included jet washing to external paths, patios and bin areas, whereas grounds maintenance charges included grass cutting and leaf clearance. The resident said these services were not provided at all. In response the landlord confirmed they resumed as normal after COVID-19. Therefore the landlord did not actually explain to the resident what level of service it provided. This was a failing in the landlord’s communication.
The resident has also raised that the scheme officers were not on site during COVID-19. The landlord explained it had increased the number of daily welfare checks to include anyone who wished to have someone to talk to during the pandemic. It said the resident would have likely seen the scheme officers less as they worked different schedules and provided some services remotely to limit the spread of infection. The landlord’s response was appropriate as it explained how it continued to provide the service, albeit in a different way to comply with the government guidance at the time.
The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about access to the communal lounge. It said it closed the lounge to comply with COVID-19 guidance, however it confirmed there was no specific charge within the rent for access to this area. The landlord also confirmed there were no duplicate charges for communal cleaning within the rent. Its response regarding these 2 issues was appropriate.
In conclusion, the landlord has evidenced that it continued to provide communal cleaning, grounds maintenance, and scheme officer support during COVID-19. Some of these services were adjusted but the landlord explained to the resident why this was the case, which was appropriate. We appreciate the resident feels he should be refunded for any services which were reduced, however as previously explained it is not our role to decide whether the level of charges is reasonable for the services provided.
However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about estate environmental service. It also missed an opportunity to fully address concerns about cleaning and grounds maintenance when the resident first raised them. Additionally, it has not set out whether the charges are fixed or variable which could lead to confusion. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s communication. Given the time that has passed we do not consider it practical to order the landlord to contact the resident to set out what estate environmental services it provided during COVID-19. However, we have ordered it to pay £50 for the time and trouble likely caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a minor failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days which was in line with the timescales set out by its policy. However, it issued its stage 2 response almost 3 years outside of its timescales.
The landlord’s complaints policy applicable in 2021 said the resident had the right to request for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the process if he remained unsatisfied. It said the resident had to submit his request within 30 working days from the date of the full response, detailing reasons for the escalation and outcome sought.
The landlord said it received the resident’s escalation request on 22 November 2021 which was within the timescale set out by its policy. It admitted it failed to process it correctly which resulted in the complaint not being escalated to stage 2 when it should have been. There is no evidence of further contact between the resident and the landlord until March 2023 when the resident attempted to escalate these issues again.
According to the evidence, the landlord declined to escalate the complaint on 3 occasions. On 17 October 2023 the landlord told the resident it would not open a new investigation. On 2 November 2023 it declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as it said it was out of time. The landlord declined to look at the issues once again on 23 May 2024.
It is clear the resident spent significant time attempting to escalate his concerns. The evidence shows he emailed the landlord on at least 7 occasions between March and November 2023. He also sought assistance from his local councillor, MP’s office, and this Service throughout 2023 and 2024. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £200 compensation.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged it should not have declined the escalation request in 2021 and 2024, but it made no reference to the additional 2 times it declined it in 2023. The landlord has also not demonstrated any learning. As a result of the additional failings, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered it to pay an additional £50 compensation for the time and trouble the resident incurred. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord made an offer of compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This brings the total amount of compensation for complaint handling to £250.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the total sum of £300 compensation broken down as:
  1. £200 previously offered if not already paid.
  2. £50 for any time and trouble caused as a result of the failings identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about service charges.
  3. Additional £50 for the time and trouble likely incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of the complaint.
  4. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against his rent account.
2. Write to the resident and provide clear information as to whether the charges payable are fixed or variable.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to remind its complaint handling staff of the provisions of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code concerning accepting requests for escalation.