London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202432619)

Background

1. On 21 January 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about a further increase in her service charges and sought justification for several charges. She also raised concerns that charges the landlord had previously agreed to waive were still being applied. After completing the landlord’s complaints process, the resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to us for investigation. The resident has advised us that she no longer lives at the property.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about her service charges.
   2. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries about her service charges.
   2. There was service failure by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.

Reasons

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.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about her service charges

What we have not considered

4. We do not investigate complaints about the level or increase of service charges. We will also not investigate whether the charges are ‘reasonable’ or provide value for money. If the resident wanted to pursue her concerns about these matters, she may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)(FTT) or the court.

What we have considered

5. Whilst we will not consider the above matters, we would expect the landlord to provide clear, transparent, and timely responses to the resident’s requests for information. Due to the number of queries raised by the resident we have dealt with each in turn.
6. In relation to audit fees, the resident said she had been informed audits would take place due to her complaints and requested details of what was audited, when, and the outcomes. The landlord’s response, that it could not identify audit fees being charged in recent years, did not address whether audits had occurred or how service charge accuracy was ensured.
7. There was also a failure in handling follow-up actions. Although the landlord stated it would refer the matter to the Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL), there is no evidence this occurred or that any audit was completed. The landlord’s explanation that this may have been delayed due to the NHL’s long-term sickness does not excuse the lack of action or recorded outcome
8. The landlord failed to address the resident’s central concern that bulk refuse charges arose due to broken communal gates, which enabled fly-tipping. While it confirmed that repairs were completed and that a general communication about bulk refuse had been issued, it did not engage with the request for a refund or removal of charges for the period when the gates were defective.
9. Its subsequent position, that costs remained chargeable regardless of who deposited the waste, demonstrates a failure to consider whether its own service failure (i.e. unrepaired gates) contributed to increased costs. This represents an incomplete response that did not fairly address the circumstances.
10. The landlord failed to provide a clear breakdown of servicing dates, works undertaken, and associated costs related to communal gate maintenance and servicing, despite repeated requests. It asserted that service charge documentation had already been provided, but did not reconcile this with the resident’s claim that she had not received it.
11. Additionally, the landlord declined to investigate charges for the communal gate prior to 2023 to 2024. This was a significant failure, as the resident’s concerns related to longstanding recurring faults and delays in repair. By limiting its review, the landlord failed to address the full scope of the complaint.
12. The landlord did not adequately explain the increase in caretaking costs or clarify what services were being delivered. While it said breakdowns had been provided, it failed to explain the approximately £100 increase or give a clear description of the service provided in return. This lack of transparency prevented the resident from understanding or challenging the charges.
13. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning focused largely on future cleaning arrangements rather than addressing what had been delivered during the relevant service charge period. While it outlined general tasks and proposed schedules, it did not clarify which areas were covered historically, nor did it explain how cleaning differed from caretaking services. Crucially, it did not provide any evidence of actual service delivery, such as attendance records, dates, or performance monitoring for the period being charged. This represents a failure to substantiate the charges.
14. The landlord failed to identify what fire safety equipment the charges related to or provide the requested 3 years of maintenance evidence. Its reliance on general statements that maintenance information was included in service charge breakdowns was insufficient. In addition, it did not adequately address ongoing issues with the fire panel. The reference to cancelled or historic repair jobs did not explain why faults persisted, nor did it resolve the resident’s concerns about functionality or safety.
15. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s claim that the mobile caretaking charge should have been removed prior to 2023 to 2024. Instead, it simply stated it could not identify the charge and placed the burden on the resident to provide evidence. It failed to review historic records or explain why the charge may have continued, demonstrating a lack of proactive investigation.
16. The landlord failed to provide details of door entry maintenance works carried out, despite asserting that charges were valid. It did not address the resident’s concern that faults persisted despite a reported repair in 2020, nor did it consider whether refunds were due for periods of non-functionality. Further, there was a clear failure to resolve the issue through the complaints process. Internal correspondence indicated that reimbursement may have been due, yet there is no evidence this was confirmed, processed, or communicated to the resident. This left the matter unresolved.
17. The landlord failed to provide a consistent and evidenced position regarding pest control charges. The resident supplied documentary evidence (meeting minutes) confirming that the landlord had previously agreed to cover these costs. While the landlord partially acknowledged this for 1 period (2020 to 2021), it did not clearly address subsequent charges or confirm whether reimbursement had been made. Although the matter was said to be referred for further action, there is no evidence this occurred or was concluded.
18. The landlord failed to provide the requested breakdown of communal repair works, including dates, reasons, and costs. It also did not explain why these costs were not met from the sinking fund, instead providing only a general description of the fund. This did not address the specific concern raised.
19. The landlord acknowledged the NHL’s prolonged absence but failed to provide evidence that adequate management cover was in place. While it stated inspections were completed and cover provided, no supporting documentation was supplied. This undermined its justification for charging full management fees.
20. The landlord did not address the resident’s claim that grounds maintenance services were not delivered for a significant period due to building works. Instead, it sought clarification from the resident and provided general statements without confirming what services were actually delivered. Similarly, in relation to play equipment, it claimed health and safety checks continued but did not provide evidence of when these occurred or what they involved. It also failed to resolve conflicting accounts regarding access to the area.
21. While the landlord provided general legal context in relation to Building Safety Act charges, it failed to respond to the resident’s specific query about the property value threshold and whether charges applied in her case.
22. Although the determination of the reasonableness and recoverability of service charges falls within the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), the landlord failed in its obligation to provide sufficient information and explanation to enable the resident to understand or challenge the charges. These failures had resulting in our finding of maladministration in relation to this element of the resident’s complaint.
23. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay £250 in compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance, where a landlord has failed to properly address concerns and has caused the resident significant and unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.

How the landlord handled the complaint

24. The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within a reasonable timeframe. The resident raised her complaint on 21 January 2024, yet it was not acknowledged until 21 February 2024. This delay was then compounded by a failure to provide any substantive response for an extended period. Despite the resident repeatedly chasing between March and July 2024, the landlord did not progress the complaint or provide a clear response. This demonstrates a lack of timely complaint handling and failure to adhere to expected service standards.
25. The landlord demonstrated poor communication and ineffective case management throughout. Attempts to contact the resident were inconsistent, including missed pre-arranged calls and limited follow-up from the Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL). These failures placed the burden on the resident to continually chase for updates and action. The absence of proactive communication, coupled with missed contact attempts, led to avoidable delay, and heightened frustration.
26. Although the resident escalated her concerns in August 2024 due to lack of progress, the landlord still did not provide a formal stage 1 complaint response until 6 November 2024.
27. This was over 9 months after the initial complaint was raised. While a service charge breakdown was provided on 4 September 2024, this did not constitute a formal complaint response, and the resident’s subsequent queries were not addressed.
28. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 November 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its responses and offered £150 compensation (£100 for complaint handling and £50 for time and effort). However, given the cumulative impact of its failings, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the detriment to the resident in this case. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint. It should be noted that were it not for the landlord’s acknowledgement and offer of compensation we would have made a finding of maladministration.
29. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation, bringing the total payable for its complaint handling failures to £250. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance in circumstances where there has been a significant delay, in this case over 9 months, which caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience to the resident.

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.