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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202223865)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223865

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 April 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:
    1. Request for a service charge refund from November 2013.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident became an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house by way of a mutual exchange in November 2013. The landlord owns the property and has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 July 2022. She said she had queried the grounds maintenance service charge multiple times, and it told her that the charges were valid. She disputed this and said she had confirmation from the council that they were responsible for her road. She asked it to remove the charges and refund her from the date she moved in.
  3. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 12 August 2022, however, we have not had sight of this. It wrote to the resident on 25 April 2023, confirming that she did not receive a grounds maintenance service. It apologised for its error and refunded £425.36, 6 years charges which it stated was in accordance with the Limitation Act.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 May 2023. She said she had raised 2 complaints previously but received no response. She telephoned in March 2023, and it assured her it would escalate her complaint. She repeated that she wanted the service charge refunded and requested a revised statement.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 October 2023. It acknowledged that her road was not part of the estate, and that the council was responsible for the maintenance. It had previously apologised in April 2023 and refunded £425.36 to her rent account the same day. It apologised for its poor communication and complaint handling. It offered £280 compensation comprising £100 for poor complaint handling and £180 for time and effort in resolving the complaint.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to refund the service charge from November 2013, pay interest, and provide an up-to-date statement.

Assessment and findings

Request for a service charge refund

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy states that service charges are collected from those who receive services for the upkeep and maintenance of communal areas around their home. Tenancy agreements and transfer documents set out what services can be charged for within the relevant estate.
  2. Service charge terms and practices must be fair and the legal rules on consumer protection apply to service charge provisions. This means that tenancy terms which allow the landlord to claim a charge without providing the service, or where the landlord is entitled to decide if the service has been provided, could be unfair and not enforceable.
  3. We must decide what is ‘fair’ in all the circumstances under the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. As a matter of fairness, service charges will only be payable where the service is ‘chargeable’ under the terms and conditions of the tenancy, and where the landlord can demonstrate the resident has received the service or benefit from a service.
  4. The resident mutually exchanged to the property on 11 November 2013. The assignment paperwork shows a weekly rent of £141.92. However, it does not specify any service charge or costs for services. We have not had sight of the original tenancy agreement dated 16 May 2011.
  5. There was no evidence submitted from either party prior to the resident’s complaint dated 20 July 2022. However, in her complaint she said she had asked on a few occasions over the years about her service charge
  6. The evidence suggests that the landlord sent a stage 1 response on 12 August 2022. We have not had sight of this and are therefore unable to assess its response.
  7. The evidence shows that the resident made further enquiries in August 2022 and February 2023. The landlord’s responses stated that its service charge team were investigating, and it would provide a response when it had an answer.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 April 2023. She said she had complained multiple times about the service charges and repeated that the council were responsible for the area. They regularly carried out maintenance to the roads and outside her home, along with rubbish clearance. She had spoken with neighbours who had refunds for being incorrectly charged. It was still charging her and refusing a refund for previous years. She asked for a refund to her rent account and said the situation was causing distress.
  9. The landlord responded the same day stating it had revisited her service charge account to remove the grounds maintenance charge for 2023 to 2024 (the current year’s charge). Its estate team had confirmed that her home did not benefit from this service. It would credit back all grounds maintenance charges dating back 6 years as per the Limitation Act (or the start of her tenancy if this was after 2016) totalling £425.36. It apologised for its error and the inconvenience.
  10. The landlord’s acknowledgement of its error and apology were appropriate. However, its application of the 6 year limitation was not reasonable in this instance. Given it wholly acknowledged its error, it should have refunded the charges from November 2013.
  11. In the resident’s escalation request to the landlord, she said she was seeking all service charges to be returned from November 2013 and a revised statement. She wrote further on 3 July 2023 stating that she was still waiting for a full explanation and refund of overpaid charges. She was struggling with her mental health and was not sure what more she could do to get it to listen and resolve the situation.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 August 2023, stating she had queried the bulk refuse collection. The local authority was responsible for the regular collection of household waste from the road. However, they would not collect items that were fly tipped or not stored correctly in appropriate bins. When this happened, it would step in and arrange a specialist contractor to remove the dumped items. It recovered the costs it incurred from residents as it was a service charge which benefited everyone. This was contradictory to its earlier response and would likely have added to the resident’s frustration and distress.
  13. In the landlord stage 2 response it apologised for the inconvenience and acknowledged its error. It understood that the resident’s road was not part of the estate and the local authority was responsible for maintenance. Its service charge lead had sent an apology on 25 April 2023 and £425.36 had been transferred to her rent account the same day.
  14. The landlord acted unfairly by charging the resident for grounds maintenance, a service which she did not receive. It also acted unfairly in the way it handled the issues and gave conflicting information. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have also made an order for the landlord to refund all charges from 2013.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged it on 25 July 2022, in line with its complaint process. It said it would provide its response by 3 August 2022. It wrote further on 8 August 2022 apologising for the delay and said it would respond by 12 August 2022. The evidence suggests that it sent a stage 1 response on 12 August 2022 as it promised in its extended response timescale.
  3. The resident chased the landlord to escalate her complaint on a number of occasions. She asked again to escalate her complaint on 4 May 2023. The landlord responded on 4 July 2023, stating it had checked its records and could see an active complaint. She was right in saying that it had not been looked at for some time and it had been ongoing for far too long. It apologised and said it would speak to its complaints team to see if it could look into this as soon as possible.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised for the lack of adequate communication and escalation of her complaint. It had raised this with its management and would do its best to avoid miscommunication in the future. It offered £280 compensation for time and effort and its poor complaint handling.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was 111 working days after the resident asked to escalate her complaint, and 91 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. That said, its apology and compensation offer were in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration. We have, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a service charge refund from November 2013.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must take the following action within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. Pay directly to the resident the sum of £250 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and effort the resident experienced in having her concerns regarding the service charge considered.
    2. Refund the service charge for grounds maintenance from November 2013 to date. The landlord must add to the payments interest at a rate of 2% (which is average RPI) from the date the resident made each payment until the date the landlord repays the resident. This is to consider that it will have benefitted from the money from interest in its accounts when the resident was not able to. It must produce evidence to us as to how it has worked this out. (£425.36 can be deducted if already paid).
    3. The landlord must no longer claim the charge for grounds maintenance. It must provide an up–to–date statement and breakdown of any charges to the resident.
    4. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    5. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident the sum of £280, offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should conduct a review of any other residents living in the same road to ensure it is not making similar charges for the same service.