London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202316559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316559

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

29 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a leasehold pre-sale pack, particularly:
  1. The accuracy of service charge accounts and interest on the account.
  2. A request for a full statement of account since 2012.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about major refurbishment works (“major works”), particularly:
  1. The level of charges.
  2. The provision of documents in a digital format.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints, particularly:
  1. Complaints about major works made in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
  2. A complaint raised in June 2023.

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of a flat in a block owned by the landlord. He purchased the property in 2012 and sold it in 2023. The resident paid charges to the landlord for services provided under the lease.
The landlord carried out major works to the block which were completed in 2021. He raised numerous complaints with the landlord about how the works were carried out between 2020 and 2022 and recently provided details of these complaints to us.
The landlord issued an invoice for the major works in November 2022 and on 20 February 2023 the resident complained about the level of the charges. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023, rejecting the resident’s complaint.
The resident made two complaints on 22 June 2023. The first complaint was about an inaccurate statement of account received as part of a pre-sale management pack for his property. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023 and its stage 2 response on 30 August 2023. It rejected the complaint on both occasions.
The second complaint was about the landlord’s refusal to provide him with details of the costs incurred and invoices paid to suppliers in relation to the major works in a digital format. He said the available invoices lacked detail regarding the costs passed to leaseholders. He had asked for, but not received, a breakdown of invoices and contract administration work so that he could carry out a reconciliation of the costs. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 June 2023 and its stage 2 response on 25 July 2023. It rejected the complaint on both occasions.
On 1 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder under its unreasonable/vexatious behaviour policy, stating that his contact regarding the major work service charges had been excessive. It limited future contact between the parties regarding that issue.
The resident asked us to investigate in August 2023. He provided a document summarising his complaints and proposed the following solutions:
1. Inaccurate statement of account: The landlord to refund the sum of £400, provide a full statement of his account from 2012, apologise for its errors regarding interest charges and pay compensation for the inconvenience caused. He also wanted the landlord’s administration charges to be reduced and for his payment re-calculations to be accepted.
2. Information relating to major works: The landlord should offer him a prompt payment discount, release all information in a digital format, apologise for its actions and offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
The resident’s complaints raise a number of jurisdictional issues and we have set out our decisions regarding these issues below:

The accuracy of service charge accounts and interest on the account in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a leasehold pre-sale pack.

In his first complaint dated 22 June 2023 the resident stated he had received an incorrect statement of account as part of two pre-sale packs provided by the landlord in 2021 and 2023. He disputed the basis upon which interest was charged to his account. He also challenged the amounts he had paid the landlord since 2012 as he believed that he had overpaid and been charged multiple times for the same bills. He asked for a refund of administration charges due to poor service by the landlord and a refund of the fee for both sale packs due to the account inaccuracies.
Paragraph 42 d of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of rent or service charge increases.
After carefully considering the evidence, we have concluded the complaint about the accuracy of the service charge accounts and the application of interest are outside our jurisdiction. This is because they both concern either the level of service charge or an amount of a service charge increase. The resident should seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue this complaint further.

The level of charges in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about the major works

Between January 2023 and June 2023 there was extensive correspondence between the landlord and resident where the resident raised numerous concerns about the costs of the major works. The resident disputed various issues including the following:
1. The adequacy of product guarantees.
2. The correct level of charges in view of outstanding snagging works which he said the landlord had not carried out.
3. Costs incurred during the works but not notified to the resident in advance.
4. The level of charges for contractors’ preliminary works and the landlord’s administration/management costs.
5. The level of interest charged on the major works.
6. The percentage of his contribution towards certain aspects of the works.
Following the complaint on 20 February 2023 regarding the level of the charges, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023, rejecting the resident’s complaint. The parties continued to correspond and agreed to meet to discuss the resident’s concerns about the level of the charges. As a result, this complaint did not proceed to the final stage of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
For the Ombudsman to consider a complaint, it must complete all stages of the landlord’s complaint process. This is because where a resident is dissatisfied with a landlord’s response, it is fair to allow the landlord the opportunity to put right any failings identified, before the involvement of this Service. Therefore, the complaint dated 20 February 2023 is out of scope for this assessment.
On 22 June 2023 he made a further similar complaint, asking for more details of the costs incurred in relation to the major works. He stated the invoices that had been provided lacked detail regarding the costs passed to leaseholders and required more detailed breakdowns so that he could carry out a reconciliation of the costs.
After careful consideration of the evidence, it is clear that while the complaint refers to a request for information and documentation, the true nature of it relates to the extensive challenges raised by the resident regarding the level of the charges for the major works.
As previously detailed earlier in this report, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which relate to the level of service charges. As such, the resident’s complaint about the provision of information in relation to the levels of service charge is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme.

The resident’s request for a full statement of account since 2012 in relation to a leasehold pre-sale pack

As part of his first complaint dated 22 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to provide a full statement of his service charge account since 2012. He asked the landlord for a “high level explanation” for each charge on the account if no supporting documentation was available.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 June 2023. A stage 1 response rejecting the complaint was sent on 6 July 2023. The landlord did not specifically address the request for details of account charges since 2012 as part of its response.
On 31 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He stated that he had bought the property in 2012 and not received a full statement of all the money requested by the landlord and paid to it in that time. He asked for compensation of £200 for the inconvenience of having to raise a complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 August 2023 rejecting the resident’s complaint. It stated that it was not required to provide the account statements requested and it was a matter for individual residents to keep their own records. It said it had provided him with revised accounts statements following receipt of payments made by the resident since it had provided the pre-sale pack. It had also provided details of outstanding invoices dating back to 2017.
Under the terms of the lease the landlord must provide the leaseholder with a copy of the service charge account for the property as soon as practicable after the end of its financial year. Under section 22 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 a leaseholder may ask the landlord to inspect the accounts, receipts and any other documents relevant to the service charges within 6 months of receiving the account. There is no requirement for the landlord to provide copy accounts and associated information dating back some 12 years. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord only to provide the more recent accounts information as part of the pre-sale pack.
The landlord, however, should have responded to this aspect at the first possible opportunity, but did not deal with it as part of its stage 1 response and missed the opportunity to resolve the issue for the resident at that time. It also did not recognise its failure to do so when providing its stage 2 response. This amounts to a service failure and the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £50 for the time and trouble to the resident who had to escalate that part of his complaint.

The provision of documents in a digital format in relation to landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about major works

As part of his correspondence with us about his complaints about the major works, the resident has raised concern regarding a letter from the landlord dated 1 August 2023 regarding the major works. The letter stated the landlord was limiting the leaseholder’s contact regarding these works under its Unreasonable or Vexatious Behaviour Policy as it believed that the level of contact about the major works was excessive.
The policy permits the receiving party to seek a review of the landlord’s decision. We have not seen any information to show that the leaseholder formally challenged the landlord’s decision to limit contact regarding major works in any way.
As stated above, before we can consider a complaint, it must complete all stages of the landlord’s complaint process. This is because where a resident is dissatisfied with a landlord’s response, it is fair to allow the landlord the opportunity to put right any failings identified before the involvement of this Service. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is out of scope.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord sent the resident an invoice for approximately £22,000 for his contribution to the major works. The landlord also provided a breakdown of the costs charged for each aspect of the work undertaken.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord issued a revised invoice, reducing the charges to approximately £19,000.
On 23 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to confirm whether it kept digital versions of the invoices relating to the works as it was refusing to provide them in digital form. In response, the landlord confirmed it was legally required to provide residents with reasonable facilities to inspect accounts and supporting documentation and to provide facilities for residents to take copies. It confirmed that it would be happy to arrange a convenient time the resident to inspect documents.
The resident continued to query why documents were not provided digitally. The landlord confirmed it had digital copies of invoices, but did not send digital versions to residents due to the possible commercial sensitivity of certain documents. The documents were often technical in nature so a project manager would attend any inspection to deal with any queries. It confirmed it would post copy invoices and payment certificates to the resident and arrange an inspection of any other documents. On 6 March 2023 it invited the resident to make an appointment to inspect the documents in person.
On 22 June 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had refused to provide him with invoices about the major works in a digital form.
In its stage 1 response dated 29 June 2023 the landlord stated that it was required by law to provide residents with the facility to inspect documents relating to service charges. It repeated that it did not send documents electronically due to commercial sensitivity and that a project manager would be available during an inspection to deal with any queries. While the timescale for inspecting documents relating to a service charge invoice had expired, the landlord confirmed that it was still willing to provide the resident access to the relevant documents. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his request for digital access to documents to stage 2 of the complaints process on the same day.
On 7 July 2023 the landlord invited the resident to an online meeting to inspect the supporting documents relating to the major works. It confirmed it would not share the documents electronically due to commercial sensitivity but would note the documents he required and provide hard copies, subject to some copying charges. The meeting took place on 13 July 2023, but the resident remained unhappy, disputing the commercial sensitivity of the documents and the landlord’s refusal to provide documents digitally. He also disputed some of the charges proposed by the landlord for copying documentation.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It upheld its stage 1 response, noting that it had offered inspection facilities after the expiry of the 6-month period set by law and offered various opportunities to inspect the documents. It confirmed that it did not circulate sensitive pricing documentation digitally. It also referred to the meeting on 11 July 2023, which had lasted 2 hours, when the leaseholder was given the opportunity to go through the relevant documentation.
Under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 a leaseholder can ask to inspect documents relevant to a service charge invoice for a period of 6 months following its receipt. The landlord must provide inspection facilities and provide copies of any documents requested, subject to a reasonable charge. The legislation does not require the landlord to provide copies digitally.
Having considered the evidence, the landlord has given the resident reasonable opportunities to inspect the documents relating to the invoice for major works and has acted beyond its obligations. The resident was given opportunities to make appointments to attend in person with the support of a project manager. He was also able to request hard copies of documents following the online meeting in July 2023. The landlord has acted reasonably and there is no maladministration in its handling of the request for documents to be provided in a digital format.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about major works made in 2020, 2021 and 2022

The resident states there have been complaint handling failures regarding the landlord’s responses to numerous complaints raised about how the works were carried out in 2020, 2021 and one raised in 2022. In particular, he states that the landlord did not escalate many of these complaints to stage 2 of its complaints process.
Paragraph 42 b of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to its attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The resident provided us with details of these complaints on 8 and 9 April 2025. Due to the significant passage of time since the complaints were raised with the landlord and the delay in bringing them to our attention, the landlord’s handling of complaints made by the resident in 2020 to 2022 are outside of our jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint raised in June 2023

When dealing with the resident’s second complaint dated 22 June 2023 the stage 1 response was dealt with by a senior officer who was part of the team dealing with the major refurbishment works. The resident was unhappy with this as he believed that the response should have been provided by an independent staff member.
In its stage 2 response dated 25 July 2023 the landlord concluded that the senior officer had responded appropriately and had set out the landlord’s legal position regarding access to documentation correctly.
The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code expects local authorities to have dedicated complaints handling teams who are independent of the departments that are the subject of complaints. Where a complaint is deal with by an independent department, this limits the opportunity for any actual or perceived conflicts of interest to occur.
Given the long history of complaints and concerns raised by the resident with the department in question, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to refer the complaint to its complaints department to respond. However, it is noted that the landlord did act appropriately at stage 2 and its response was provided by a staff member separated from the substance of the complaint. The perception of a conflict of interest was minimised by this action as part of its overall complaint handling. However, its failure to do so at stage 1 amounts to a service failure and the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £100 for the distress caused to the resident by this failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme the complaint about the accuracy of service charge accounts and interest on the account in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a leasehold pre-sale pack is outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the request for information about the level of charges in relation to the major works is outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a full statement of account since 2012 in relation to a leasehold pre-sale pack.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there is no maladministration in relation to landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about major works in a digital format
In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about major works made in 2020, 2021 and 2022 are outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint raised in June 2023.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay compensation of £150 to the resident made up as follows:
1. £50 for the time and trouble having to escalate his request for records from 2012 to stage 2 of the complaints process.
2. £100 for the distress relating to the landlord’s complaint handling failures in 2023.