Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Newham (202423147)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423147

London Borough of Newham

7 July 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 the resident’s service charge queries. This includes queries relating to:
    1. CCTV and concierge services.
    2. Caretaking services.
    3. Repairs to guttering.
    4. Services provided by the housing liaison officers.
    5. The installation of a new door entry system.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 3 bedroom maisonette on the second and third floor of the block. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The resident purchased the property through the Right to Buy scheme in June 2003.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord sometime before 10 April 2024 querying the role of the housing liaison team and related service charge. It also appears, from the landlord’s evidence, that the resident contacted the landlord in relation to other service charge queries around the same time. However, the landlord has not made this information available to us.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s query on 10 April 2024. It gave an overview of the role of the housing liaison team and clarified the types of issues the team would not deal with. The landlord asked the resident to let it know what issues she would like to discuss with the housing liaison officer, so it could make sure the team were best placed to respond.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 May 2024. She said the landlord had charged her for services it had not provided. She said she had asked it to review the charges, but it had not done so. She said her main concerns were the charges for CCTV and concierge services, caretaking services, works to the gutters in the communal area, and services provided by the housing liaison officers.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024. It partially upheld the complaint as, although the CCTV was working, it found the concierge service was no longer in place. The landlord found no issues or failings associated with the other service charges. It offered the resident £650 compensation. This was made up of £600 for the delay in resolving the issue, inconvenience, time, and trouble, and £50 for the delay in the stage 1 response.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 September 2024. It confirmed it had refunded the concierge services charge from 2019. It restated its response to the resident at stage 1 in relation to the issues raised in the original complaint. It also responded to an additional issue relating to the charges for the installation of the door entry system, not raised in the resident’s original complaint.
  7. The landlord reviewed the compensation offered at stage 1 and increased the amount to £850. This was made up of £750 for the delay in resolving the issue, inconvenience, time, and trouble and £100 for delays in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she wanted the landlord to refund the service charge costs for the roof works and door entry works and pay additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint is about the reasonableness and level of service charges. If the resident believes she has been overcharged for services, she can make a claim to the relevant tribunal under s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine the reasonableness of the charge and whether the charge is payable. Under the Scheme, the Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or their increases, or where it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy via another procedure, such as the Tribunal, in this case. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was fair and reasonable and whether it responded sufficiently to the resident’s queries.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries

  1. Under s19(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, service charge costs must be reasonably incurred and services provided or works completed must be of a reasonable standard. The landlord should therefore review any concerns raised about the delivery and quality of such services and take appropriate action to address any identified issues.
  2. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of a service charge policy. However, the landlord’s website includes service charge information for leaseholders. The website explains a leaseholder’s rights and responsibilities, what the landlord charges for, how it calculates its charges and when leaseholders will receive invoices. It also provides contact information in the event of any queries.

CCTV and concierge services

  1. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly what prompted the resident’s complaint about the CCTV and concierge services. It is also unclear from the landlord’s evidence when the resident first raised her concerns and how the landlord responded. However, the resident raised a formal complaint on 24 May 2024.
  2. She told the landlord she did not understand why she had been charged for CCTV that did not work and concierge services she did not receive. She said there had been a recent incident of criminal damage to the communal door, which she believed was captured by a working camera. She said she had tried to investigate the incident, but she had been told by the landlord that the camera did not work. She asked the landlord to review her charges.
  3. The resident also raised her concerns with the mayor’s office. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s original correspondence. However, this would appear to include her queries in relation to the CCTV and concierge services. The mayor’s office responded to the resident by email on 21 June 2024, after corresponding with the landlord. It said the landlord had found no evidence to show that the CCTV at the block did not work. It said the landlord had confirmed the following:
    1. the CCTV cameras were working, and it was unaware of any time they had been out of service. A vine was slightly obstructing the camera at the front of the block. However, it had asked its operatives to cut it back 
    2. it had not told the resident that the CCTV cameras were not working. Although it could only confirm they were working by attending site
    3. the housing liaison team were not aware as to whether the CCTV systems were working in the blocks
    4. most of its CCTV systems were standalone and not connected to a centralised CCTV centre
    5. the CCTV pictures requested by the resident related to an incident of damage to the communal door. It had been unable to provide the footage as it could not get an exact date and time of the incident. As the system only saved recordings for 30 days, it had run out of time to extract the footage. However, in any event, it was likely it would only give the footage to the police as part of a criminal investigation
  4. The mayor’s office said it was unable to verify the resident’s claims that she had been overcharged based on the responses from the landlord. It recommended the resident seek a resolution via the landlord’s complaints process. While the information provided by the landlord to the mayor’s office was helpful, it did not recognise at this point that the resident was paying a concierge charge when she was not receiving a concierge service. This was unreasonable.
  5. Given that the evidence suggests the resident had been raising these queries for some time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange to discuss the issues directly with the resident, rather than continue to send emails back and forth. This would have given the resident the opportunity to fully explain her concerns, and the landlord the opportunity to provide sufficient responses.
  6. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 30 June 2024. She asked it to review her service charges between 2007 and 2024. She also asked for an explanation of the charges for the concierge services. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to this email, even if just to confirm it would respond to her queries within the stage 1 response. This was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024. It confirmed that up until 2019 the concierge team monitored the CCTV remotely. It also confirmed the CCTV was in full working order. It said in late 2022 it converted the CCTV to a standalone system. This meant each block had its own recording equipment which was not monitored centrally.
  8. It said it had agreed to credit the concierge service charge from 2019 to date and it had removed the charge from the resident’s service charges going forward. It also informed the resident it was considering converting its CCTV systems to a cloud-based setup. It said this would mean it could monitor the cameras across multiple blocks, which would highlight cameras that had failed or been tampered with. In addition, the landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue. It also offered the resident compensation of £600 for the delays in resolving her service charge queries, inconvenience, and time and trouble.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. She asked the landlord several questions relating to the functioning of the CCTV prior to 2019. These included a request for the monitoring records, reasons why footage was not available in 2012 for a specific incident, the purpose of the cameras and who would pay for the upgrade to the cloud-based system.
  10. It was clear from the resident’s escalation request that she was still not satisfied with the landlord’s response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord, in addition to escalating her complaint, to have considered signposting her to the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) for free and independent advice.
  11. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 September 2024. It responded to the resident’s questions. It said it used CCTV primarily for security purposes, to monitor the block and help prevent and detect crime. It said it upgraded the original CCTV systems on its estates as they were old and parts were obsolete. It said it was unable to provide CCTV monitoring records as it only logged specific incidents and escalated issues when necessary. It said the concierge team was not aware of an incident in 2012. It also confirmed that the cost of the works to further upgrade the CCTV would be reflected in the leasehold service charges, subject to any requirement to consult with residents.
  12. The landlord confirmed it had credited her service charge account for the concierge charge for 2019-20, 2020–21, 2021–22 and 2022–23. It also offered increased compensation of £750 for the delay in resolving the issues, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately acknowledged and recognised that there were failings. However, it has not shown that it recognised its failure to respond to the resident’s emails prior to the stage 1 response. It also did not recognise that it could have signposted the resident to LEASE for help, given that her queries were complex and longstanding. The compensation offered by the landlord will be considered in the conclusion below.

Caretaking services

  1. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident first raised her concerns in relation to the caretaking service charge. However, she raised the caretaking service charge in her formal complaint dated 24 May 2024. She said there had been no caretaking services for years. She said the residents cleaned the communal areas themselves on a rota basis, yet the landlord had still charged her for caretaking services.
  2. The response from the mayor’s office dated 21 June 2024 included some feedback from the landlord in relation to caretaking services. It said it had reviewed past data, such as service requests for estate cleaning, between June 2023 and October 2023. It said it had received no complaints about the block cleaning. It said it had received a complaint in November 2023, which prompted a site inspection, although it did not find any issues. The landlord said it could not provide copies of attendance logs as the period predated the digitisation of the estate cleaning records.
  3. This was not a satisfactory response. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence how long it keeps its cleaning records for, but it was unreasonable that it was not able to provide some form of evidence that the cleaning had taken place in line with the cleaning contract. The absence of complaints alone is not evidence of a functioning caretaking service.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2024. She asked it to confirm the caretaking services it provided and provide the attendance records. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s request.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024. It said the last report it had received from the resident about the caretaker services was November 2022. It said it had carried out an inspection at the time and found no issues. It said the block had been inspected 3 times in the last 12 months by an independent monitoring officer, and it had passed inspection on each occasion.
  6. It told the resident that she could report any concerns about the communal cleaning online or to the housing liaison officers, so it could investigate and resolve any issues. It also discouraged the resident from cleaning the communal areas as it said it would make it difficult to carry out a proper investigation if needed. Although it apologised for the delay in addressing her issues, the landlord confirmed it had not upheld the resident’s complaint.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. She said her block was clean because the residents kept it clean. She said the caretaking had not been consistent as the block had not been cleaned as expected on 9 July 2024. She asked the landlord several questions about the caretaking services. She asked whether a caretaker’s duties were covered if they were off sick or on holiday. She asked why there was no attendance sheet in the communal area, and why she did not have contact details for the caretaker. She also asked for a breakdown of the caretaker’s duties.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 September 2024. It apologised for the missed block clean on 9 July 2024. It clarified that when caretakers were off work, the cleaning day could change as the work was covered by the pool staff. It said it did not receive a service request for the missed attendance from any of the residents. It explained that residents could report any environmental issues directly via an app. The landlord added a link to the app within the response.
  9. The landlord confirmed that there was now an attendance sheet within the block so the resident could see when the caretaker had attended. It also confirmed the duties undertaken by the caretaker on a weekly basis. It apologised to the resident and acknowledged the inconvenience caused, although it did not uphold this element of her complaint.
  10. Within the stage 2 response the landlord did adequately respond to the resident’s additional questions and it provided details of the app so the resident could report any future concerns directly. It also appropriately apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. However, it did not fully recognise the delays in addressing the resident’s concerns or the lack of the availability of the attendance logs. It did not consider sharing the block inspection reports as an alternative to the attendance logs. It also did not consider how it could monitor the block cleaning more closely going forward once the residents had stopped cleaning the communal areas.

Repairs to guttering

  1. The landlord has told us the roof to the stairwell in the resident’s block was originally a flat roof. In 2012 the landlord carried out major works to the resident’s block and several identical blocks to change the flat roofs to pitched roofs. The landlord charged the resident for the work under the terms of her lease. However, the resident disputes that the original roof was a flat roof. She has told us that the roof has always been a pitched roof. She said the landlord carried out the work in 2012 to rectify the work of the original builders, who built the property incorrectly with an internal guttering system. The resident said she has been in dispute with the landlord for many years about this matter.
  2. The resident raised the roof works within her formal complaint dated 24 May 2024. She said she had been incorrectly charged for works on the stairwell when the original builders had made a mistake. She said the landlord and the contractors who undertook the work had made her aware of the mistake.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 June 2024. She asked it to give her a detailed explanation as to the stairwell guttering charge. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s email or that it made attempts to clarify the resident’s concerns. Had it done so it would have found the charge in question was from 2012. It could then have managed the resident’s expectations as to the likelihood of it being able to fully respond given the length of time that had passed.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 5 July 2024. It confirmed that, following the work to the roof in 2012, the gutters were installed correctly on the external side of the building. It also confirmed it would not charge leaseholders for defects caused by a contractor. It said it had investigated reports of a roof leak in April 2022. However, upon inspection it found the water ingress was caused by blocked gutters, which it had cleared. It said it had recently visited the block and confirmed there was no visible water ingress into the building. The landlord confirmed it had not upheld the resident’s complaint.
  5. The stage 1 response shows a misunderstanding of the resident’s complaint, as she was not complaining that the gutters were installed incorrectly in 2012. She was complaining that the gutters were installed incorrectly when the property was first built. Her complaint was that she had been charged to rectify what she believed was a defect in the original construction of the property.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. She asked the landlord to provide minutes of the meetings which confirmed the gutters had been incorrectly placed. She also asked for confirmation of the completed work.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 September 2024. It said it no longer had the minutes of the meeting the resident had referred to. This was due to the length of time that had passed. It also confirmed it could not provide details of the completed work. However, it said the charges would have included the cost of redesigning the stairwell roof for the whole estate and possible redecoration to the internal and external areas.
  8. Although it was unlikely the landlord would have been able to provide the resident with minutes from a meeting pre 2012, given the length of time that had passed, it did not manage the resident’s expectations adequately through the complaints process. The evidence shows it also failed to fully understand the resident’s complaint.

Services provided by the housing liaison officers

  1. The resident contacted the landlord by email at some point prior to 10 April 2024 to query the role of the housing liaison officers and the related service charge. The landlord responded on 10 April 2024 and confirmed the duties associated with the role.
  2. The resident disputed the service charge in her formal complaint dated 24 May 2024. She said she had not engaged with the housing liaison officers and should therefore not have to contribute to the cost.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 June 2024 to ask the landlord for an explanation of the ‘resident services’ service charge. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord responded to her request. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to at least explain that the complaints team would provide the response.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 5 July 2024 said the housing liaison team leader had been in regular contact with the resident about several issues. It explained its housing liaison officers were available to all residents. However, it said there was likely to be minimal contact with leaseholders as they would only need to make contact for block and estate services. It said the resident had also been in regular contact with the resident services officers. It explained that the ‘resident services’ service charge included the charge for other services, such as leasehold collection and billing teams, for which she was liable to pay. This was a reasonable response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. She asked the landlord to explain the role of the liaison officer and confirm when it had held meetings for residents over the past years.
  6. In its stage 2 response dated 16 September 2024 the landlord explained the role of the housing liaison officer. It confirmed that the service charge for resident services was charged to all leaseholders and it confirmed its decision at stage 1.
  7. Although the stage 2 response adequately clarified the role of the housing liaison officer and the resident services charge, it should have been clear to the landlord that the resident had asked for and been given this information previously. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sign-posted the resident to LEASE, so she could access free and independent advice.

The installation of a new door entry system

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident in December 2021 to let her know of its plans to improve communal access to the block. This included the installation of a new communal entry system.
  2. The resident did not initially raise her concerns about the new door entry system within her formal complaint. She contacted the landlord on 30 June 2024, following the submission of her formal complaint, to request a detailed explanation of the increase in the door entry service charge from £10.61 to £318.54. She told the landlord she had attended a meeting in 2020/2021 where it had explained the new door entry system would be funded through a government grant. However, she said the landlord had since charged her for the work. It was clear from her correspondence that she intended this issue to be raised as part of her complaint. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
  3. Although the resident made her request before the stage 1 response was issued, the landlord did not address her concerns within the stage 1 response. This has been considered in more detail within the complaint handling section of this report below.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. She asked the landlord to explain why it had charged her for the door entry costs when she had been told in a meeting that the work would be funded by another source. The resident asked the landlord on 31 July 2024 to provide a copy of the minutes of the said meeting. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to her request or confirmed it would respond as part of the complaints process.
  5. The landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 9 September 2024 that it had already responded to the resident’s query, although it did not confirm the date, or provide a copy of the correspondence within its evidence. It said the total cost of the work in 2021–22 was £3,185.43. It said it had initially charged the resident £318.54. However, it recognised that the charge should have been capped at £250, as it did not carry out a s20 consultation. Therefore, it said it had credited the resident’s service charge account with £68.54.
  6. In the stage 2 response dated 16 September 2024 the landlord explained that, under the terms of her lease, the resident was liable to pay towards the cost of the works. It apologised if she was led to believe otherwise. It did not respond to her request for the minutes of the meeting where it had discussed the funding of the work. It also did not acknowledge its earlier correspondence in relation to the overpayment and refund of service charges, or its lack of responses to the resident’s emails.

Conclusion

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we consider that the offer of £750 was a proportionate offer of compensation for the delays in responding to the resident’s concerns and the overpayment of the concierge charges. This is because the compensation offered is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  3. However, while the landlord has recognised that there were failings in the case, it has not shown it has recognised all the failings. This includes its failure to respond to emails, the lack of availability of the attendance logs or meeting minutes, its failure to manage the resident’s expectations and its lack of understanding of part of the resident’s complaint. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint, and on that basis, we find that there has been maladministration.
  4. While we do not consider that the additional failings would lead to an increase in compensation, as the amount offered is proportionate taking into consideration the circumstances of the complaint, we do consider that the landlord should issue a written apology to the resident for the additional failings. In addition, the landlord should make arrangements to speak directly with the resident to discuss her overall concerns and signpost her to relevant organisations.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will:
    1. acknowledge and log stage 1 complaints within 5 working days
    2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged
    3. acknowledge and log stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of the date of escalation
    4. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 May 2024.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 June 2024 to extend the timeframe for a response by 10 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy. This meant the response was due to the resident on or before 27 June 2024.
  4. The resident raised further concerns in relation to her door entry service charge on 30 June 2024. It was clear from her email that she intended to add these concerns to her existing complaint.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 5 July 2024. This was 26 working days from the date of acknowledgement and outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord has provided no explanation for the additional delay beyond the extension period. However, it apologised and acknowledged the delay within the stage 1 response and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  6. The landlord did not include the additional concerns raised by the resident in relation to the charge for the door entry system within the stage 1 response. Nor did it raise a new complaint. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which says at 6.8 “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint”.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 30 July 2024. This was outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s policy.
  8. The resident chased her stage 2 response with the landlord on 27 August 2024, 29 August 2024 and 6 September 2024. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 September 2024. This was over 8 weeks from the date the escalation request should have been acknowledged. This was significantly outside of the timeframe of the 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy. The landlord did apologise for the delays at both stage 1 and stage 2 within its response. It also increased its offer of compensation to £100.
  9. However, this amount does not fully recognise the significant delays. The delays caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience and delayed her from escalating her complaint to us. In addition, the resident had to chase the landlord for her stage 2 response. As such, we find that the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.
  10. To put things right, the landlord should pay the resident £175 for its failings in complaint handling (inclusive of the £100 offered in its stage 2 response). This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided where the landlord made an offer of compensation which is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. An order to this effect has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s queries in relation to her service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £925 (the landlord may deduct from this amount any payment it has already made) made up of:
      1. £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
      2. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Contact the resident to arrange an appointment to discuss her service charges. The landlord must confirm the outcome of the appointment in writing to both the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the meeting. The landlord must also sign-post the resident to relevant organisations who may be able to assist her should she wish to pursue the matter further.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider implementing a policy or process which refers leaseholders to the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) when it receives queries relating to the reasonableness of service charge costs.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendations.