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.

Southwark Council (202422663)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422663

Southwark Council

27 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 response to the resident’s request for a service charge repayment plan.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder of the building.
  2. On 24 August 2022, the landlord issued a Section 20 notice for communal emergency lighting installation works which included an estimate of the resident’s contribution to the cost. On 27 October 2023, the landlord sent an invoice of £3,530.93 for the outstanding service charges for 2022/23 and asked the resident to pay.
  3. From November 2023, the resident and landlord exchanged emails about his request for an itemised breakdown of the lighting and electricity costs. On 18 December 2023, the landlord provided this and a copy of the original Section 20 notice. The resident responded that he had not received the notice and asked about payment options.
  4. In January 2024, the landlord explained service charges were due within 30 days of the invoice but offered a payment plan of £1,176.98 per month from January to March 2024. The resident said he was unable to pay these monthly amounts and questioned whether the works should be treated as major works as he understood these to have different repayment options to service charges. The landlord clarified that because the works exceeded £250 for at least one leaseholder, a Section 20 notice was required, and the charges were treated as service charges due by the financial year-end. The resident said it was unreasonable to expect him to pay almost £1,200 per month, noting that extended payment plans had previously been made available.
  5. On 20 February 2024, the resident complained that the payment demand was unreasonable and that his request for a longer-term plan had not been addressed. He argued the landlord had classified the works as service charges rather than major works to avoid offering an extended payment plan.
  6. On 11 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said actual service charge were payable within one month. It noted the payment plan offered in January 2024 – for the period January to March 2024 – was, at that point, the maximum period it could offer. It also provided a form to complete if he was struggling to pay.
  7. On 13 March 2024, the resident escalated the complaint, repeating his concerns and requesting a longer-term plan. On 19 August 2024, the landlord’s final stage 2 response did not uphold the complaint, repeating parts of its stage 1 response. It also explained the works were not all planned works as some charges were for responsive repairs. It stated its responses were timely, payment options were clearly communicated, and the resident had 6 months (October 2023–March 2024) to pay.
  8. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he disputed the landlord’s explanation of the works as service charges rather than major works. He requested clarity on how major works are determined and also that future major works include payment plans.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. The resident’s core complaint concerns what qualifies as major works, for which he understood leaseholders would normally be given the option of paying by a series of monthly instalments. However, this investigation does not seek to decide which of the resident’s or landlord’s interpretations of the subject are correct. That is something which would ultimately require specialist technical and legal expertise outside the Ombudsman’s remit.
  2. What this investigation centres on is whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests was reasonable in the specific circumstances of the complaint. In other words, were its decisions supported by relevant guidance, policies and evidence. For a more definitive decision on major works versus service charges, the resident may seek assistance from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a service charge repayment plan

  1. The resident’s lease sets out that if the actual service charge exceeds the original estimate, then the difference is payable within one month of the notification.
  2. The landlord’s leaseholder guide acknowledges major works can be substantial and may be paid in 12 interest-free monthly instalments, but does not mention a payment plan for service charge works.
  3. The resident considered the communal emergency lighting works to be major works, meriting a payment plan. The landlord rejected this, stating a Section 20 notice was issued on 24 August 2022 and that the cost of the work would be included in the payments for the 2022/23 service charge year, with payment options clearly outlined.
  4. The Section 20 notice clearly explained that the resident’s share of the proposed costs would be incorporated into the service charges for the relevant year. It supports the landlord’s explanation.
  5. The resident told the landlord that he had not received the notice. The landlord explained that such a concern was not something it would address through its complaints process because there was a formal statutory process which applied instead.
  6. Not receiving the notice is not in itself evidence that it was not issued but would potentially be a valid concern for any leaseholder as the notice is an important element of any large-scale work and costs. To challenge the validity of a Section 20 notice, residents should go to the Tribunal. If the resident believes he has been impacted by not receiving the notice, he has the option to seek guidance from the Tribunal. Accordingly, without evidence suggesting otherwise, the landlord acted correctly in issuing the notice.
  7. On 27 October 2023, the landlord issued an invoice for the outstanding amount for 2022/23. The resident queried the amount allocated to block lighting and electricity charges. While the landlord’s responses were delayed by 2 months due to legibility issues, the resident was still required by his lease to pay the balance within one month of the notification.
  8. In January 2024, the landlord stated that £1,176.98 was due in each of January, February and March 2024 to pay off the outstanding amount. The resident responded that he could not pay charges of nearly £1,200 in each of those 3 months. He argued such amounts were unreasonable and that a previous Section 20 notice had offered a payment plan. The landlord replied that he would have been eligible for a 6-monthly instalment plan of £588.49 starting from October 2023. Nothing in the evidence seen in this investigation shows the landlord was obliged to offer an extended payment option in the specific circumstances here. Given that it had issued advance notice of the charge in August 2022 and October 2023, its decision in response the resident’s request was not unreasonable.
  9. In summary, the Section 20 notice clearly described the works, the resident’s share of costs and how they would be paid. The landlord acted in accordance with the lease and requested payment for outstanding service charge which was payable within one month of the late October 2023 notification. The landlord consistently explained these were service charge works throughout and was not obliged to offer an extended payment plan.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request for a service charge repayment plan.