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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202301182)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301182

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 November 2024


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 enquiries about the estimated service charges for the period 2023 to 2024.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared owner of the property since October 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom second floor new build flat. The landlord is the property’s freeholder. The landlord has said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 8 March 2023, the resident requested that a complaint was raised. He said he had chased the landlord on several occasions requesting a breakdown of his service charges but had not received a response.
  3. On 24 March 2023, the landlord sent a stage 1 response. The landlord said it had on the same day sent the information detailing the differing value from the 2023/24 estimate and the managing agents 2022/23 draft budget. In accordance with the terms of the lease it was required to provide an estimated service charge sum prior to commencement of the financial year. There was no requirement within the lease that it had to provide a detailed breakdown of how the estimate has been calculated.
  4. For transparency It would however aim to provide the supporting budget to show how it had calculated the charges. This was the first year it had been able to do so. Once it had reconciled the accounts and issued the final statement the resident was entitled to request a breakdown of the calculation and to view supporting documentation. It provided details of the relevant legislation that the resident could use to request information and when. It also pointed out the relevant clauses in the lease which applied to the action the landlord had taken and enclosed a further copy.
  5. The landlord explained its position in relation to the resident’s formal request under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It provided timescales of when it would provide the final account statement for the financial year 2022/23. It informed the resident that he could seek advice from the leasehold advisory service and seek determination of the reasonableness of the costs from the First Tier Tribunal Service. It also explained the reasons why service charge costs may increase over time in accordance with the rise in inflation.
  6. It apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s initial enquiry made on 16 February 2023. It explained this was due to an increased workload and the time needed to investigate the enquiry and calculate analysis on the recently received 2022/23 draft budget. It said that a breakdown had now been provided and no revision to the service charge would be made at this time.
  7. On 24 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. He said he wanted to know why invoices could not be provided. He wanted to know how the landlord could be sure that the service charges for the property was correct. He also said that his complaint had not been responded to within 10 working days.
  8. On 11 April 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It reviewed its findings in its stage 1 response and said that it was satisfied that it had considered the resident’s complaint appropriately and provided the information available. In respect of its complaint response time. It said that it had received the resident’s formal complaint on its website on 13 March 2023. It had therefore responded within its timescales.

Post complaint.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied. He was unhappy that the service charges had been increased so much with no justification. He considered the landlord’s communication had been poor which had caused him stress and anxiety. As a resolution he said he wanted compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about the estimated service charges for the period 2023 to 2024.

  1. It is understood that the resident’s complaint concerns the information he was provided about the service charges, and the landlord’s response to the queries he raised about the service charges. We should make it clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the complainant would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.
  3. It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. Its adverse impact on his welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around any damage to his health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for any distress and inconvenience it caused.
  4. The lease states the leaseholder covenants with the landlord to pay the service charge. The service provision can be made of up of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair management, maintenance and provision of services for the premises.
  5. The service provision in respect of any account year will be calculated before the beginning of each account year. The service provision will consist of a sum comprising of the estimated expenditure which is likely to be incurred in the account year by the landlord. As soon as practicable after the end of each account year the landlord will determine whether the estimated amount had exceeded or fallen short of the actual expenditure.
  6. In this case the landlord sent the estimated service charges to the resident on 13 February 2023. It explained that the increase would apply from 1 April 2023. It said that by September 2023 it would send another letter showing the difference between the estimated costs in the letter and the actual costs it paid. It would then be able to advise whether an extra payment or refund was required. The information provided by the landlord was appropriate and in accordance with the terms of the lease.
  7. The records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 16 February 2023. He requested a breakdown of the estimated service charges with detailed invoices. The evidence does not show that the landlord responded until the resident chased up the matter again 7 working days later on 28 February 2023.
  8. The landlord did then respond on the same day which was appropriate. It said that as it was sending out the service charge estimates for 2023/24 it was likely to be receiving a higher volume of incoming emails which could delay matters. It explained that it would get back to the resident as soon as possible. The resident responded and asked the landlord to provide a timeframe. The landlord responded stating that it would aim to try and respond with 10 working days.
  9. 7 working days later on 8 March 2023 the resident requested that a complaint was raised. The resident then chased the issue up again the next day and again 10 working days later. The landlord had provided a timescale, to the resident so it was reasonable that it had not responded to the resident’s emails chasing the matter prior to this point.
  10. The landlord called the resident on 14 March 2023 which was 11 days after it had provided a 10-day timescale. It apologised for its delay to his initial enquiry and wanted to explain why. The records state that the resident advised the landlord that he did not wish to discuss the matter further. He asked the landlord to formally respond to his stage 1 complaint. While this Service acknowledges that was the resident’s preference it was appropriate that the landlord contacted the resident to update him and explain its position.
  11. The landlord sent its response to the enquiry about the service charge on 24 March 2023. This was 27 working days after the resident’s initial enquiry. Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged its delay in responding and apologised. This response was appropriate. It explained that its delay was due to an increased workload and the time needed to investigate the enquiry. It said while it did aim to respond within 10 working days this was not always possible at certain times of the year.
  12. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a landlord’s response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. The landlord’s explanation about the increase in enquiries due to the new estimates being communicated to all its residents was reasonable in the circumstances.
  13. Where there are delays it would of course be reasonable to expect a landlord to contact the resident, to explain the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe. In this case the landlord had contacted the resident on 14 March 2023 by telephone to try to explain its position. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It showed that the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns and was trying to manage his expectations.
  14. The stage 1 response went further to explain its position and its obligations under the lease. It also enclosed a further copy of the lease which was appropriate. It explained that it was not obliged under the lease to provide a breakdown of how the estimate had been calculated. It had however for transparency purposes, provided the supporting budget based on which it had calculated the charges. This showed that the landlord had listened to the resident and was trying to resolve matters.
  15. The landlord also explained the relevant legislation that the resident could rely on should he wish to formally request information once the accounts were reconciled, and the final statement issued. It also advised what agencies the resident could contact for free impartial advice should he remain dissatisfied.
  16. It further explained how shared ownership worked to enable households to purchase homes. It advised that service charge increases were subject to inflation which was not something that could be predicted.
  17. The landlord reiterated its position again in its stage 2 response. It explained again why it was unable to provide specific invoices until it had completed the account reconciliation for the end of the financial year. It also reiterated its advice of where the resident could seek independent legal advice should he wish to do so.
  18. In summary, the landlord’s shortcomings and detriment caused in this case were minimal. There was a minimal delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial enquiry. This meant that the resident had to chase the matter after 7 working days. The landlord then provided a reasonable explanation for its delays and provided an estimated time frame in which it would aim to respond. It called the resident when it did not meet that timescale. It went further in its complaint responses to explain how the lease and legislation applied. It informed the resident where he could seek independent advice. It sought to put matters right by apologising for the delay. It is on that basis that this Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction on 8 March 2023 however this was during the 10-day timeframe period that the landlord had provided for it to respond to the original enquiry. The landlord then said it received a formal web complaint from the resident on 13 March 2023. It issued its stage 1 response on 24 March which was 13 working days after 8 March 2023 and 10 working days after the 13 March 2023. Even if the complaint had been accepted earlier the delay was minimal with no detriment caused to the resident as a result. Its stage 2 response was provided within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses were comprehensive and evidenced a thorough investigation into the issue raised. The landlord went further to explain the relevant terms of the lease and what action the resident could take. The landlord apologised for its short delay in its response which in the Ombudsman’s opinion put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about the estimated service charges for the period 2023 to 2024.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.