London Borough of Newham (202301460)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301460

London Borough of Newham

23 May 2025

(Updated following review on 29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s request for a breakdown of service charges, with supporting evidence.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 3 September 2018 and lives in a 2-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord is a local authority.
On 22 December 2022, the resident requested a breakdown of variable service charges from 2021-2022.Theyasked for the calculation of each service charge, how the landlord apportioned the charges, and requested copies of receipts. The resident also asked the landlord for calculations for the concierge service from 2019-2022, as they felt the charge for this service was too high.
The landlord responded to the resident on 3 March 2023. It provided the resident a summary of the 2021-2022 service charge costs.
On 3 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. The resident said:
1. they had waited over 2 months before the landlord responded.
2. the landlord had not provided receipts for the 2021-2022 service charges.
3. the landlord had not answered their queries.
On 8 March 2023, the landlord provided a response to the resident. It said it should have answered the resident’s queries. The landlord explained the general calculation it applied to work out the service charges apportioned to residents. The landlord said it would contact the resident again in 20 working days to provide a stage 1 response.
On 3 October 2023, the landlord sent the resident a redrafted stage 1 response. The resident escalated the complaint to the landlord on the same day as they said it had not answered their queries.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. The landlord upheld the complaint and:
1. offered the resident £200 for time it had taken to provide a breakdown of the service charges, including how it calculated and apportioned them.
2. offered the resident £50 as its previous responses had not made clear how it calculated service charges.
3. offered the resident £50 for the delay providing its stage 2 response.
4. apologised for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
On 3 November 2023, the resident referred the complaint to this Service to consider. They said the landlord failed to respond to their service charge enquiry and had not provided supporting evidence of the charges. The resident told this Service on 7 November 2023, that if the landlord cannot provide evidence of the service charges, they want them refunded. The resident is still waiting for the supporting evidence of the service charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s concerns included the cost of the concierge service. The resident said they will not pay the service charge until they receive supporting evidence of it, such as invoices and accounts.
The Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent, or the increase of service charge or rent. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which we understand the resident had previously referred to. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice or advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case, if they choose to do so.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues they had raised with the landlord, including that it had not provided supporting evidence for the service charge period 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. These issues did not form part of the original complaint.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues will need to have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, before being referred to this Service to consider, if the resident chooses to do so. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2023.

The resident’s request for further information about service charges

On 22 December 2022, the resident requested a breakdown of service charges from the landlord for the 2021-2022 period, with supporting evidence.
The landlord’s Lease and Annual Service Charge booklet says:
1. the landlord will supply a copy of the service charge summary to the resident, that shall be conclusive evidence of what the charges are for.
2. the resident has the right to request a written summary of the service charge costs, that the landlord must provide within 1 month.
3. within 6 months of the service charge, the resident can request the landlord to provide accounts, receipts, and other documentation supporting the summary.
Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says:
1. where a resident requests service charge information, the landlord must provide evidence such as accounts, receipts, and other documentation supporting the service charge summary, within 1 month of the request.
The landlord responded to the resident on 3 March 2023, with a summary breakdown of the service charges for 2021-2022. The landlord did not provide the resident evidence of the service charges as they had requested, such as accounts, receipts, and other documentation. This did not pay due consideration to section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and was not in line with the landlord’s Annual Service Charge information.
On 3 March 2023, the resident raised the complaint to the landlord that it had not provided evidence of the service charge costs.
On 8 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It committed to providing them detailed information about the service charge and concierge costs. It generally explained the service charge was dependent on the area the resident lives, their property type, and lease conditions. However, it had not provided the resident supporting evidence of the service charge. This was unreasonable and a failure of its service.
On 11 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and affirmed that they did not want a summary of costs. The resident told the landlord they wanted invoices, receipts, and accounts as well as how the costs for the block were obtained.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It gave the resident a service charge summary, and explained how it calculated and apportioned the service charges. It said it could not provide invoices or receipts for the service charges as it contracted its direct labour force, which does not invoice for works completed for the block. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience.
The landlord had not provided the resident supporting evidence of any of the service charge costs. It instead said it had a direct labour force that had not invoiced for any work. This was unreasonable, not in line with its Annual Service Charge information, and does not pay due regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act. The landlord had not acted with transparency to provide the resident supporting evidence of the service charge costs, which left them unassured, distressed and inconvenienced.
On 3 November 2023, the resident escalated the complaint to this Service. The resident said the landlord had not provided supporting evidence for the service charges. They told us on 7 November 2023, that if evidence of the service charges could not be provided, they wanted these refunded from 2018.
The landlord should have provided the resident what records and evidence it had to explain the 2021-2022 service charge costs. This could have included its records for the repair and maintenance work the direct labour force completed for the block and how that was costed for the service charge period.
In addition, the landlord had not provided evidence of any other parts of the service charges that the resident requested, such as the concierge service. It was unreasonable the landlord had not provided supporting accounts and documentation for the service charges.
The landlord apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its complaint responses. It:
1. offered the resident £200 for the length of time it had taken to respond to the resident’s request for a breakdown of service charges.
2. offered £50 as it had not clearly explained how it calculated and apportioned service charges in previous responses.
3. said it was considering ways it could share a clear breakdown of service charges to residents.
4. said it had not provided the resident supporting evidence of the service charges.
In summary, the landlord had not provided any supporting evidence of any service charges to the resident. This was unreasonable and a failure of its service.
Considering our outcome guidance, we may find maladministration where a landlord failed to provide a service, failed to demonstrate sufficient learnings, and where its responses had undermined the landlord and resident relationship.
The resident said the landlord had “sent nothing that they had asked for” and explained they felt “extremely disappointed”. The lack of supporting evidence for the service charges caused the resident distress and inconvenience and undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
Considering the landlord’s complaint responses and our outcomes guidance, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint, for the reasons outlined above.
While there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for supporting evidence of the service charges, it offered compensation which was in line with our remedies guidance and its compensation policy. The landlord should reoffer the compensation of £250 to the resident if this has not already been paid.
The resident said they have not received supporting information in relation to the service charges. We have ordered the landlord to provide evidence of the records it used to determine all the 2021-2022 service charge costs to the resident. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

The associated complaint

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident raised their complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. responded to the complaint within 10 working days.
  1. if an extension was needed, it communicated the timescale to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. the response should confirm its the landlord’s stage 1 response.
  3. amongst other things, the stage 1 response should provide details on how the resident can escalate the complaint to stage 2.
3. if the resident requested a stage 2 response, it should provide the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  1. if an extension was needed, it explains this to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree it.
The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was aligned with the Code.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 3 March 2023 via email and so it had until 10 March 2023 to acknowledge it. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 March 2023, in line with its policies and the Code.
The landlord had until 18 March 2023 to provide the resident its stage 1 response. It provided a response to the resident on 8 March 2023, in line with the timescales outlined by its policies and the Code.
The landlord’s response from 8 March 2023, provided an outcome of the complaint and the steps it would take to remedy it. Although it had not confirmed it was its stage 1 response, and instead told the resident it would provide a stage 1 response within 20 working days. This caused confusion, delay, and was not in line with its polices and the Code.
The resident chased the landlord for the stage 1 response on 11 April 2023, reiterated the complaint to the landlord, and referred the complaint to this Service on 12 April 2023.
This Service contacted the landlord for clarification about its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023 and 26 September 2023. We told the landlord its response was unclear and to redraft it for the resident.
The landlord sent a redrafted stage 1 response to the resident on 3 October 2023. This was reasonable to make it clear to the resident what its stage 1 response was.
On 3 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord had until 31 October 2023 to provide the stage 2 response, or confirm it needed an extension to respond. On 4 and 25 October 2023, this Service contacted the landlord to provide a stage 2 response to the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 2 November 2023. This was outside of the time it had to respond and therefore was not in line with its policies or the Code.
From the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised for the distress and inconvenience it caused. It offered the resident £50 for the delay providing its stage 2 response. While the landlord made some attempts to put things right in its stage 2 response, the offer of compensation does not fully recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
During the complaint journey, the resident said they “no longer had faith in the council”. The resident was clearly distressed and inconvenienced because of the landlord’s lack of clarity and delay to provide its complaint responses.
In summary, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, because it:
1. provided unclear complaint responses to the resident.
2. delayed the complaint process.
3. provided poor communication throughout the complaint process.
4. failed to acknowledge all of the complaint handling failures identified in this investigation and therefore did not put things right or learn from outcomes.
After careful consideration and in line with our remedy guidance, a fair level of compensation would be £150 This recognises the distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord can deduct the £50 it offered the resident, if it has been paid to them.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. provide a full apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report.
2. write to the resident with supporting evidence of all costs outlined in the 2021-2022 service charge summary, such as invoices, accounts and receipts.
3. write to the resident and provide supporting evidence from the direct labour force records of what works were completed, costs involved as part of the contract for the 2021-2022 period, and how this was applied to the service charge summary.
4. pay the resident a total of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the service charge request, if it has not already done so.
5. pay total compensation of £150 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. It can deduct the £50 it previously offered to the resident, if it has already been paid and evidence of payment is provided.
6. Provide the resident with a full response under a new complaint including:

– Concierge service break down and evidence for 2019 to 2022.

– Full service charge break down with evidence for the years 2019 to 2021 and 2022 to 2024.

The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days from the date of this determination.