London Borough of Brent (202338858)

Decision
Case ID	202338858
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Brent
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	07 January 2026

Background

In 2019, the landlord brought its cleaning service in-house, which led to increased service charges. The resident requested an explanation from the landlord in July 2021, prompting the landlord to appoint an independent consultant in December 2021 to review how cleaning charges were apportioned across its estates. It said it would share the results by March 2022 and was unable to provide further explanations until then.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about changes to the calculation and allocation of communal cleaning.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that the landlord offered a reasonable level of redress in recognition of the changes to the apportionment of communal cleaning charges.
We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

The complaint about the apportionment of communal cleaning charges.

The lease allows the landlord to change the services provided. The landlord recognised failures in its communications with the resident, and that his overall experience fell short of the standard the landlord wishes to provide. It put things right by apologising, adjusting the account, and offering fair and proportionate compensation.

The handling of the associated complaint

The landlord responded to the complaints within the timescale of its policy. Its responses were comprehensive and resolution-focused.

Putting things right

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already, the landlord should pay the resident the £550 compensation offered in its complaint response.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 January 2023	The landlord communicated the outcome of its review and said it had now achieved consistency in the apportionment of cleaning charges across all its properties and estates. It said the review included consulting an external company to advise about apportionment methods. It also liaised with caretakers and its teams on sites. It also apologised for the delay in completing the review and communicated its outcome to residents. However, it was now confident that the apportionment of cleaning charges across its borough was correct.
29 October 2023	In his stage 1 complaint, the resident said: The landlord overcharged for two years by billing for 21 hours of cleaning that it had not delivered. He initially raised the issue in July 2021 and was repeatedly told that an independent review would be conducted and that its recommendations would be adopted. He chased the landlord for 18 months to share the outcome of the surveyor’s review, which was not provided. He said this was deliberate to prevent him from taking his case to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). He obtained the report via a freedom of information request and discovered the landlord had been charging for 12 hours of cleaning while the surveyor recommended 10 hours. This eroded his trust in the landlord’s administration of service charges. It took the landlord 9 months to provide him with the service charge information he had requested under sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. This was outside the statutory time of 1 month.
10 November 2023	In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that: There were errors in its service charges before the review. It underestimated the complexity of its borough-wide review. During this time, it had failed to proactively keep the resident updated and manage its expectations effectively. The review was now completed and accurate. It had credited the resident’s account with the resulting £312.07 for the 2 years since it brought the cleaning service in-house. The surveyor’s report was not used as it did not meet the original brief specifications. It accepted that there was a delay in providing the resident with the information it had requested under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. It apologised and offered £250 in compensation. To reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of clear and timely communication, it offered an additional £300 in compensation. It rejected the resident’s assertion that the delay was deliberate. It said it had signposted the resident to take his case to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on 5 April 2023.
19 November 2023	In his escalation, the resident said the compensation did not reflect the time and inconvenience of pursuing the landlord. He felt the landlord misled him by giving the impression that it had followed the surveyor’s recommendation, which it had not.
27 December 2023	In its final response letter, the landlord said the outcome of its review resulted in a reduction to the resident’s service charges. It was confident that these were correct and fair. It reiterated its acceptance of its failures but maintained that these were not deliberate and that its offer of compensation was fair.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that, in his opinion, the landlord provided misleading information after deciding not to follow the surveyors’ recommendations. To resolve the complaint, he would like increased compensation. He told us during this investigation that he had since purchased the freehold title of his building.

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 on whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The complaint about the apportionment of communal cleaning charges
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident’s lease allows the landlord to change its services from time to time and adopt a fair apportionment method to reflect changes across its properties and estates. Landlords are also entitled to establish their own policies and procedures best suited to their organisation. It follows that the landlord was within its rights to decide whether to accept the surveyor’s recommendations if these did not fit its operations. It is not disputed that, at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had already corrected the cleaning charges attributed to the resident’s account.
In its complaint response, the landlord accepted failures in its communications with the resident and a failure in managing his expectations. It said that, apart from its head of service, all its staff had failed to respond to the resident in a timely manner, and the information was at times inconsistent. It recognised that the resident expended an unnecessary amount of time and effort chasing the landlord for information that was not forthcoming. Coupled with its decision not to adopt the independent surveyor’s recommendations, it acknowledged this undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s administration of service charges.
It was appropriate that the landlord recognised shortcomings in its communication with the resident. However, the resident pointed out that the landlord had told him that the surveyor’s report had been completed and that the landlord had adopted the report’s recommendations, accepted them, and made them the basis of its review. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this in its responses to the complaint. The landlord did not explain how these issues had arisen or how it would prevent such failures in the future. For example, consequently, it did not fully restore the resident’s confidence in its service charge administration.
Overall, however, it accepted most of the resident’s assertions. It acknowledged that the review had taken significantly longer than its operatives estimated. It recognised that this resulted in the resident’s experience falling short of the service it aimed to provide. The landlord apologised. It corrected its apportionment method and credited the account with the relevant amount. It also offered compensation.
Where a landlord recognises it has made errors, our role in cases is to assess whether the redress offered puts things right satisfactorily and resolves the resident’s complaint, in all the circumstances. In making this assessment, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own remedies guidance.
As explained, the landlord offered a total compensation of £550 for its handling of the resident’s apportionment concerns. This was separate from the £312.07 refund applied to the residents’ account. In assessing whether the compensation amount was sufficient to put things right, we have relied on our remedies guidance. The amount falls within the recommended compensation range for situations where landlord failures affected the resident, but not permanently. We consider that the compensation of £550 was fair and proportionate. Together with the landlord’s apology and correction of the account, it provided a reasonable redress for the complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the associated complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord responded to the complaints within the timescale set out in its policy. Its responses were comprehensive and resolution-focused. Its offer of compensation was fair and proportionate to the failing identified. The landlord evidently followed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles explained in paragraph 11 of this report.

Learning

Communication

The landlord recognised there were communications issues at every level of staff. It may be worthwhile to investigate the reasons for this and how to prevent such issues in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

It is not clear why the resident had to raise a Freedom of Information request to obtain a copy of the surveyor’s report. The landlord may wish to investigate whether this was a record-keeping issue.