London Borough of Lambeth (202432099)

Background

1. Between January and September 2023, the resident was in communication with the landlord about her 2018 to 2019, 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 actuals. On 6 November 2023, the resident complained about the lack of response to the follow up queries she had raised in her correspondence to the landlord of 11 September 2023. The complaint exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process on 22 July 2024. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as the landlord had still not provided a response to the follow up queries she had raised in September 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s follow up queries of 11 September 2023 about her service charge actuals.
3. We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s follow up queries of 11 September 2023 about her service charge actuals.
   2. there was maladministration 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 follow up queries of 11 September 2023 about her service charge actuals

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of the service charge increase. 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) or the court.
6. Whilst we will not consider the above matters, we would expect the landlord to provide clear, transparent, and timely responses to the resident’s queries about her charges.
7. The evidence shows extensive communication between the resident and the landlord between January and September 2023 regarding the service charge actuals. The issue we have considered in this report is the landlord’s response to the resident’s follow up queries raised on 11 September 2023.
   1. with regards to the 2018 to 2019 actuals, the resident:
      1. asked why the landlord had not consulted her before the communal water quality works were carried out, given her share of the actual exceeded £250
      2. challenged the landlord’s position with regards to costs relating to works to the balcony door of another flat. The resident asked why this had been charged to all leaseholders, when the responsibility lay with that individual leaseholder
   2. with regards to the 2020 to 2021 actuals, the resident asked for:
      1. the relevant schedule of rates to justify the cost of a tap included within communal water quality costs. The resident also asked the landlord to explain why works it had previously described as a new installation were later referred to as water storage repair works and categorised under communal water quality
      2. an explanation of lift repairs and planned maintenance costs where identical charges were applied to different lifts
      3. the schedule of rates under the relevant qualifying long‑term agreement (QLTA) for ‘fire equipment service risk assessment inspection’
      4. further clarification regarding wall repairs which the resident maintained were caused by a property outside her estate. The resident asked for the schedule of rates under the relevant QLTA and an explanation for the continued presence of fencing 2 years after its erection
   3. with regards to the 2021 to 2022 actuals, the resident:
      1. asked whether lift repair and servicing costs were predetermined or based on actual expenditure. The resident also asked the landlord to provide details of how lift repairs were monitored and what works were carried out
      2. again, queried the prolonged presence of fencing associated with wall repairs and why costs continued to be charged
      3. said the landlord had not answered her question about estate cleaning costs and asked that it now do so
      4. asked the landlord to provide her with written evidence from the water utility company confirming the need for drain clearance, including details of the specific drains, in order to establish whether they were within the curtilage of her block
      5. asked the landlord to clarify why an overhead charge was not refunded alongside 1 of 2 duplicated day‑works charges relating to water storage
8. The landlord did not provide any response to these follow up queries. As a result, the resident raised a formal complaint on 6 November 2023. While the complaints process offered an opportunity to address the failure, the landlord did not do so.
9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response related to an entirely different matter. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged this error, recognised the resident continued to have outstanding concerns and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
10. However, the landlord did not identify which of the resident’s queries it had not answered or take steps to ensure that substantive responses were provided. Instead, it returned the resident’s own correspondence of 11 September 2023 to her and advised her to raise any queries with its Homeownership team.
11. This represented a significant service failure. The resident had waited approximately 10 months and pursued her concerns through the landlord’s formal complaints process, yet still received no answers to her substantive queries.

How the landlord handled the complaint

12. The resident initially raised her complaint on 6 November 2023. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it was required to acknowledge the complaint and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It failed to do so.
13. After waiting around 4 months, the resident resubmitted her complaint on 15 April 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. This was 31 working days after the resident resubmitted her complaint and 126 working days after she logged her original complaint. The response did not address the correct complaint and did not apologise for the delay.
14. Although we have not seen evidence of the resident’s escalation request, the landlord said it received this on 17 June 2024. On this basis, the landlord was required to acknowledge the request by 24 June 2024 and issue its stage 2 response by 24 July 2024. While there is no evidence of acknowledgement, the landlord issued its stage 2 response within the required timescale.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted its stage 1 response was delayed and related to an entirely different matter. Given these acknowledged failures, we would reasonably expect the landlord to apologise, offer redress, and demonstrate learning from the complaint. Its failure to do so supports our finding of maladministration in complaint handling.

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.