From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202326224)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326224

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

28 August 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 handling of requests for a payment plan for major works.

Background

  1. The property is a 3-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord is a council and is the freeholder of the block. The person who made the complaint is the current leaseholder. As they do not live in the property and have not always been the leaseholder, they are referred to as the complainant throughout this report.
  2. The complainant’s father became the leaseholder of the property in 1999 and lived there with his wife, the complainant’s mother. The complainant’s father died in 2003 but remained the named leaseholder. The complainant’s mother lived there until her death in July 2022.
  3. The complainant inherited the property and became the leaseholder in June 2023. The property remains in the family although no-one currently lives there.
  4. In 2020 the landlord issued a notice of major works and the work was completed in 2021. The invoice for payment was issued to leaseholders in January 2023. The landlord told the complainant she could not take advantage of an interest free payment plan which was open to resident leaseholders.
  5. The complainant made a stage 1 complaint on 18 July 2023. The landlord responded on 28 July 2023 and confirmed that interest would apply to the repayments. The complaint was escalated on 2 August 2023 and the landlord responded on 31 August 2023. It maintained its position that the complainant was not eligible for the interest free payment option.
  6. The complainant referred the matter to us. She believes the payment plan should be available as her mother was alive and resident in the property at the time of the works.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the complainant’s father’s death in 2003, her mother lived in the property as the sole occupant. In the paperwork sent by the landlord about the costs of major works, resident leaseholders were able to pay the cost over several years. The first 3 years of payments were interest free. The cost to each leaseholder was £25,305. Interest would add approximately £10,000 onto the total cost.
  2. The landlord had allowed the complainant’s mother to choose the interest free option for previous works. The current major works were quoted and completed when the complainant’s mother was still alive. It was reasonable for the complainant to expect the interest free option to still be available.
  3. The complainant’s mother died in July 2022 and the landlord sent the invoice for payment on 26 January 2023. In April 2023 the complainant emailed the landlord to say she had been trying to make contact by phone, without success. This was to set up a payment plan. It was frustrating that the complainant had not been able to speak to anyone.
  4. The landlord replied that, as a non-resident, the complainant had to pay interest because only resident leaseholders were allowed an interest free option. This was in line with the landlord’s policy regarding payment for major works. It was transparent with this policy which is available on its website. This was a unique situation as the complainant was not the leaseholder. At that point the leaseholder was still named as her father, who had been a resident until his death in 2003.
  5. The complainant asked the landlord for a phone number as she understandably wanted to discuss the issue. The landlord did not provide this and was blunt and rigid in its response. It maintained that she did not fit the criteria for the payment plan. This was not helpful or reasonable. Even if the landlord would not alter its decision, the complainant should have been given an opportunity to speak to someone. The landlord should have taken the family’s circumstances into account and treated the complainant as an individual.
  6. Following the complainant’s insistence, the landlord said the matter had been passed to a manager on 20 April 2023. The complainant chased it on 2 May and 8 June 2023. The landlord failed to respond and this was unacceptable. It was a stressful time for the complainant. The money owed was a large amount and she was dealing with this in addition to the loss of her mother.
  7. On 3 July 2023 the landlord responded and said it had already sent the payment options that apply to non-resident leaseholders and interest free was not applicable. This was not helpful, particularly after the delay. There was no evidence the matter had been escalated to a manager as requested and the landlord did not appear to take the circumstances into consideration. It did not give the opportunity for the complainant to speak to a member of staff. This was service failure.
  8. Following the stage 1 complaint, the landlord emailed the complainant with follow up questions to gain further information. This was appropriate. In its response the landlord said that, at the time of the invoice, the complainant was not a resident leaseholder. Therefore she could not benefit from interest free payments. The fact remained that the complainant’s father was still the leaseholder at that time. It was a difficult and complex situation. While the landlord was entitled to make this decision, the complainant was understandably frustrated.
  9. When the complainant escalated her complaint, she explained that her mother had previously been eligible for interest free payments. The complainant’s mother had still been alive when the works were quoted and completed so she believed this should be honoured.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the complainant’s mother should never have been eligible for interest free payments as she was not the leaseholder. It was correct that her mother was never the named leaseholder. However she was married to the leaseholder and lived there for 20 years after he died. It was not helpful for the landlord to say now that it should never have offered those repayment terms. It could have demonstrated more understanding and flexibility given the unique circumstances.
  11. The landlord maintained that, at the time of the invoice, the complainant was not a resident so had to pay interest on the repayments. While this was a fact, the complainant was not a leaseholder at that point either. This does not make the landlord incorrect but highlights the complexity and unique circumstances of this case.
  12. We are not in a position to say the landlord must offer the complainant the payment plan that is open to resident leaseholders. The complainant may wish to seek independent legal advice in that regard. However, the delays in responding to the complainant’s queries and requests for a phone call were unacceptable. The landlord could have done more to demonstrate that it had considered the specific circumstances of the case and fully explained its position to the complainant.
  13. We therefore find that there was service failure in how the landlord handled requests for a payment plan for major works. It is ordered to speak to the complainant about the issue, either face to face or by telephone. While this may not alter the decision, it can show it has taken the unique circumstances into account and fully explained the reasons for its approach. It can also offer the complainant the opportunity to feel heard and understood.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for a payment plan for major works.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has spoken to the complainant about the matter, either by phone or face to face. It should then confirm the outcomes of the conversation in writing to her.