Peabody Trust (202446126)

Background

1. The former leaseholder sold his share of the property in March 2024. Following the sale, he told the landlord that he was still receiving payment request letters for service charges associated with the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s administration of the sale of the leaseholder’s property.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s administration of the sale of the leaseholder’s property.

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

Reasons

4. Under our Scheme, we can investigate complaints made by a person who is in or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord. This includes current and former leaseholders. If a complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter complained of arose.
5. Complaints that concern the ending of this legal relationship may also be within our jurisdiction. In this case, the former leaseholder’s complaint relates to the landlord’s actions when ending the legal relationship as part of the sale process. As such, we have the power to investigate it.
6. Landlords have a responsibility to monitor and update their records during and after the sale of their leaseholders’ properties. In particular, they should replace the former leaseholder’s details with the new owner’s within a reasonable time period. This ensures that any future correspondence is sent to the correct person.
7. In addition, landlords should investigate, respond to and resolve any concerns raised by a former leaseholder about their records in a timely manner.
8. In April 2024 the former leaseholder told the landlord that he was still receiving service charge payment requests associated with a property that he had sold in March 2024. However, it was not until the end of August 2024 that the landlord took steps to resolve the matter.
9. At that time, the landlord identified that it had not received the notice of transfer documentation that allowed it to replace the former leaseholder with the new one on its records. The evidence suggests that it was not until December 2024 that it received the relevant information to update its records. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether any delays during this time could have been avoidable. Nonetheless, during this period the former leaseholder received further letters requesting payment and chased the landlord for updates. This caused him distress and inconvenience.
10. Given that the landlord was aware that it was unable to update its records during that time, it would have been reasonable for it to have kept the former leaseholder updated. For example, it could have explained to him that while it was working on updating its system, he may still receive some letters. This may have gone some way to mitigate his distress. That there is no evidence it did so is unreasonable.
11. It is also unclear if and when the landlord updated its records following receipt of the transfer documentation. This is because there is evidence to suggest that in February 2025, the former leaseholder’s name was still recorded as a current owner of the property on its system.
12. In his March 2025 complaint, the former leaseholder asked the landlord to confirm that the service charge payment letters he had received did not apply to him. He also asked it to confirm that its records were updated to show that he no longer owned the property.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays in addressing the former leaseholder’s concerns and offered him £100 compensation for the failing. While this was positive, its response was vague and did not fully address his specific concerns.
14. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated and responded to the former leaseholder’squestions. This would have satisfied itself and the former leaseholder that the matter had been fully resolved.In particular, as at the time of the stage 2 response, the issue had been ongoing for approximately a year andthere is no evidence to show that the landlord’s records were updated at this time.
15. If the landlord was unable to respond to the former leaseholder’s questions at the time of its stage 2 response, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided a date it expected to be able to. This would have demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the matter.
16. As the landlord did not do so, this caused the former leaseholder further uncertainty, distress and inconvenience, as he did not know whether he was still associated with his previous property’s service charge account. He has told us that he has not received any further payment request letters. However, he said this may be because he no longer has his mail redirected to his new home.
17. It is noted that the former leaseholder also asked the landlord for a closing balance statement. He has told us that while it sent a statement along with the stage 2 response, it was not a closing balance statement.
18. Given the above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the former leaseholder an additional £100 compensation. We have also made an order for it to contact him to discuss any outstanding concerns that he may have.

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.