From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Hackney (202322782)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322782

London Borough of Hackney

11 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 recovery of service charge arrears.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. He lives at another address and sublets the property out privately.
  2. On 20 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said he had discovered that a County Court Judgement (CCJ) had been put against his name, due to service charge arrears. The resident said that the landlord had his correspondence address, email address and contact number and it had never made him aware of the arrears. He advised he had now made a payment of £1234.66, which he believed was the outstanding amount, and requested the bill for his records.
  3. On 2 September 2022, the resident requested the landlord put a note on his credit file that the CCJ against him was an error. He advised this was affecting his employment opportunities.
  4. On 20 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise the court had set aside the CCJ. On 17 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for compensation. He advised the CCJ had been on record from 19 June 2022 until 6 October 2022 and that this had caused him financial loss, due to it affecting his employment. He advised that he had been offered a job at the start of September 2022, but this had been withheld until 26 October 2022 due to the CCJ on file.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident on 6 June 2023. It said that letters had gone to the resident’s property address, instead of the correspondence address. It said that the resident had not registered his property for subletting, as per the provisions of his lease. It said that it had applied to the court on 6 July 2022 to have the CCJ set aside, but that delays with the court meant the order was not sealed until 4 October 2022. The landlord said it had told the resident the court order should be sealed within 3 weeks, but that this was based on its experience of the courts. It said the court was busier at this time. It said it would not offer compensation for delays caused by the court.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 June 2023. He said that he had informed the landlord of the sublet in 2018 via the sublet form. He said that he had emailed and hand delivered the form. He had since provided evidence of this to the landlord. He requested compensation due to lost salary.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 8 December 2023 at the resident’s request. This was because he had not had a complaint’s response. The landlord advised that the correspondence from the resident dated 12 June 2023 said he would be making a formal complaint, but that there was no evidence he subsequently did this. The landlord logged the formal complaint on 8 December 2023.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 January 2024. It said that it had found an email from the resident dated 1 March 2018, confirming the sublet and providing a correspondence address. It said due to a serious cyber-attack, it had not updated the correspondence address. It said it had now updated this. The landlord said the arrears were due to the resident not making regular payments on the account and making large lump sum payments instead. It said this was not in line with his lease agreement. It advised the last payment prior to the CCJ being secured was September 2021. It recognised that there had been a significant short-term impact on the resident and offered £600 compensation for this. In response to the resident’s request for compensation for lost salary, it said that it would reimburse 50% of the earnings the resident would have made if the start date had not been delayed. It asked for proof of salary from the resident.
  9. The resident provided the landlord with an email dated 3 January 2024, which confirmed his salary would have been £681 a day. On 10 January 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it did not generally compensate for loss of wages. It said it would increase the compensation offer to £1,000, instead of compensating for salary loss.
  10. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 January 2024. He said that the £1,000 offered did not cover the impact the matter had had on him. He said he expected the landlord to compensate for his wage loss as the landlord had committed to this previously.
  11. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 31 January 2024. It said that the information in the stage 1 response regarding the offer to compensate for lost salary was incorrect, and that it should have advised him to seek independent legal advice instead. It apologised for this. It confirmed that there had been errors on its part in not updating the address and in providing incorrect information in the stage 1 response. It confirmed its offer of compensation was £1,000.
  12. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer due to the impact he has described the matter had on him. He would like an increased compensation amount, which reflects his financial loss and the distress and inconvenience he had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. On bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that the CCJ prevented him from being able to get a mortgage. The resident did not raise this until after the stage 2 response had been issued. The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to the matter having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is a complaint handling failure. As the matter relating to the mortgage had not been raised or responded to until after the stage 2 response, and there is not complaint handling failing in this regard, we will not consider this in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of recovery of service charge arrears.

  1. The landlord’s homeownership guide says that service charges are due on the first day of the month, each month. The evidence provided suggests that the resident was not making regular payments. We are aware the resident did not receive bills at his correspondence address, due to an error on the landlord’s part which was a service failing. However, we consider that the resident has a responsibility to ensure it is making monthly payments, as per the landlord’s home ownership guide. As there was money owed, it was reasonable for the landlord to pursue this.
  2. The landlord’s debt collection policy states that it will contact residents in a variety of ways and not just by letter. It also says it will make residents aware of what might happen when a debt is not paid and provide advice and support if needed. The resident’s complaint advised that the landlord had his email address, phone number and correspondence address. We have seen no evidence that the landlord used any other communication method to advise of the debt, other than by letter to the property address. The matter subsequently resulted in a CCJ by the courts. Whilst the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to dispute the validity of the debt, we consider that there was a failing from the landlord, in not adhering to is debt collection policy.
  3. On 29 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with evidence that he had followed the correct procedure when subletting his property. He sent a copy of the form he originally sent in March 2018. The landlord should have considered the resident’s evidence and responded to him. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded directly to the resident regarding this matter. However, on 6 July 2022, the landlord applied for the CCJ to be set aside. The landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated effectively, however we consider the application to set the CCJ aside to be evidence that the landlord was attempting to provide the resident with a resolution.
  4. The resident made a request to have his credit file updated with a note that said the CCJ was and administrative error. The landlord’s solicitor responded within 3 days to this request, stating that this was not something it had done previously, and it would need to look into this matter. It is unclear from the records if the landlord contacted the credit agencies. However, it produced a letter on 15 September 2022 which said the CCJ was an administrative error and that it would be set aside. This was for the resident’s records, and so that he could demonstrate to interested parties, that the CCJ would be set aside. We consider that the landlord offered a temporary solution to support the resident, while the court completed its process.
  5. The landlord said in its complaint response that the delay in getting the CCJ set aside was due to the courts being busy. The resident had emailed the landlord on 14 September 2022 to advise that the courts had told him that the information they received from the landlord was incomplete. The landlord’s solicitors responded on the same day to advise that it had not had notification from the court that there was any issue with the application. We are unable to comment on whether there were any issues with the application as this falls within the remit of the courts. However, we can see the solicitors were responding to the resident’s communication on this matter.
  6. We understand the CCJ was set aside on 6 October 2022, however the resident has provided us with an email that the application to place a restriction on the property, was not rejected until 16 January 2024. The Ombudsman recognises that there were significant delays in the process being completed. However, any delays due to the actions of the court are not the responsibility of the landlord. The evidence we have been provided, shows that the landlord acted promptly when it was made aware of the error and when responding to the resident’s queries.
  7. The resident said that he believed a contract he was working on was terminated early, due to the CCJ. The landlord said it would not compensate for any wages lost due to a contract being terminated early, as employers are entitled to terminate temporary contracts. The landlord’s response was reasonable. This is because the landlord is not responsible for the actions of the resident’s employer.
  8. The resident has provided the Ombudsman and the landlord with evidence that due to a failed credit check, his employer had withdrawn a future role. This evidence was an email from his employer, dated 21 September 2022. In the stage 1 response, the landlord offered to pay 50% of the resident’s lost salary. In the stage 2 response the landlord said that this was an error and that it should have told the resident to seek independent legal advice. We have reviewed both the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and both state that compensation is not usually given for loss of earnings. We further note, that neither guidance provides a basis for compensation for loss of earnings for prospective jobs. On correcting the error, the landlord directed the resident to take independent legal advice which was appropriate. It apologised and increased the compensation offer to £1000, from £600 in the stage 1 response. We consider that the landlord responded reasonably when it identified it had made an error, by acknowledging this, apologising, and providing the correct information.
  9. There were failings from the landlord in not updating the correspondence address and not following its debt collection policy. The landlord also provided incorrect information in its stage 1 response, which is likely to have caused further distress to the resident. However, the landlord acted to put things right when it was made aware of the error, by applying to the court to put the CCJ aside. It provided an interim letter for the resident confirming that there had been an administrative error.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that where we find maladministration, we can order compensation of up to £1,000. The landlord made an offer of £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As this is in line with our remedies guidance, we consider that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the recovery of service charge arrears.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 June 2023 and said he would be raising a formal complaint. In the email he advised why he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will log a complaint when a resident expresses dissatisfaction. The landlord did not log the complaint at this time, due to it expecting further correspondence from the resident. While we recognise that the wording of the complaint may have caused confusion, the landlord has not demonstrated that it responded to the resident to seek clarity. As the resident expressed dissatisfaction in the email, and provided the reasons why, we consider there to be a service failing in the landlord logging the complaint.
  2. On 8 December 2023, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord issue a stage 1 response. The landlord responded on 3 January 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. From the landlord logging the complaint, the response time was 15 working days which was outside the timescales. This was not a significant delay, however as per paragraph 23, we recognise that the resident had already waited longer than he should have for a response.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 January 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It responded on 31 January 2024, which was within these timescales.
  4. As the landlord failed to recognise an expression of dissatisfaction and therefore did not log the complaint, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In considering our orders we have taken into account the overall impact on the resident. Whilst we recognise that having to contact the Ombudsman to obtain a response is likely to have been frustrating, we note that the landlord had resolved the substantiative issue at the time the resident raised the complaint. We therefore consider that the impact was minimal and consider an order for an apology to be appropriate as per our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the recovery of service charges arrears.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident, for failing to log a complaint, when the resident raised dissatisfaction. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance of this, within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the compensation of £1,000 for its handling of the recovery of service charge arrears, if it has not already paid this.