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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202303026)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303026

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 February 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. Reports of errors made on the service charge account.
    2. Concerns about the level of the management fee charged.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 2–bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in 1996. The property is owned and managed by the housing association landlord.
  2. The landlord sent the resident her rent and service charge statement for the year 2023 – 2024 on 23 January 2023. The resident queried why the landlord was charging for maintaining play equipment that was removed many years ago. She also asked the landlord to confirm the areas covered under the grounds maintenance charge. This was because she lived in a house with no communal areas.
  3. The landlord explained the areas covered by the grounds maintenance charge and identified it had added the play equipment charge in error. It removed the play equipment and caretaker charges and issued an updated statement on 15 March 2023. On 17 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord what the management fee charge covered as she had not been consulted before this charge had been introduced.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter and made a complaint on 17 April 2024. She did not agree the charges had been an error and said the landlord had refunded an incorrect amount. She wanted the landlord to issue her a refund for all previous years it had charged for the maintenance of the play equipment.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 19 April 2024. It explained how it calculated the service charges and confirmed it should not have charged her for the maintenance of the play equipment. It also agreed to remove the charge for the mobile caretaker on the basis this was not a service she was currently receiving. It explained what its management fee covered and that a rounding error on its computer system had led to it applying an incorrect refund. It confirmed it had now applied the correct refunds.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint on 20 April 2023. She felt it was unfair for the landlord to say it had simply made an error and said that the landlord had been charging for the play equipment for years. The resident wanted the landlord to refund her for all the previous years it had charged her for this. She felt the amount the landlord was charging was not justified given the level of service she was receiving.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 7 July 2023. It said was still waiting for confirmation regarding previous years charges for the maintenance of the play equipment and it would update the resident as soon as possible. It apologised for the poor service she had received, including significant delays between responses and a lack of communication resolving the issue. It offered £140 compensation, comprising £50 for the delayed stage 2 response, £50 for overall service failure and £40 for distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. The landlord sent a further response on 23 August 2023 confirming it had not charged the resident for the maintenance of the play equipment in previous years therefore no further refunds were due.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service on 25 August 2023. She believed she was entitled to a refund for the years she had been charged for the maintenance of the play equipment.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme says that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”
  3. The resident has raised concerns about the level of management fee charged within the service charges and she has requested a refund of this fee. This Service does not consider complaints about the level or reasonableness of rent or service charges and cannot make a binding decision on the matter.  The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is the appropriate body to consider the level of rent and service charges as they can make a binding decision.
  4. This part of the complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme. However, we have investigated the remaining complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of errors made on the service charge account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her complaint escalation request, the resident raised concerns around repairs issues and mentioned that the landlord had not offered her the option to buy her home. The landlord responded saying this had not formed part of her initial complaint and it had therefore treated this as a new request. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these matters, she may raise a new complaint to the landlord. This Service may not investigate matters which the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to investigate through its own internal complaints procedure. For this reason, any repairs issues and queries around the resident’s right to buy her home have not been assessed as part of this investigation.

Reports of errors made on the service charge account.

  1. The landlord sent the service charge statement for the year 2023 to 2024 to the resident on 23 January 2023. The statement included an annual charge of £33.33 for play equipment and £16.75 for a mobile caretaker. The resident queried both of these charges stating the play equipment had in fact been removed some time ago and she had never seen a mobile caretaker at the property. The landlord made some internal enquiries and removed both charges. The resident also noted the landlord had charged a management fee of £56 when it had previously been noted as £52. The landlord committed to reducing the fee back to £52 for this year. It made the relevant changes and reissued the statement on 15 March 2023. The landlord acted on what the resident had said and reissued the statement in a timely manner. This was a reasonable response.
  2. In response to the reissued statement, the resident told the landlord she had been charged for these items for a number of years. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the previous years’ charges. The landlord responded on 22 March 2023 and told the resident that the time had passed to dispute previous years’ charges. It would therefore be unable to revisit these charges.
  3. The resident also raised a concern that the landlord had introduced new charges since her tenancy had begun (such as the management fee and grounds maintenance charges) without consulting with residents. The landlord clarified on 22 March 2023 that it only needed to consult on charges over a certain threshold, as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It confirmed that none of the charges in question exceeded this threshold.
  4. The resident was unhappy with this approach and complained to the landlord on 17 April 2023. In its stage 2 response of 23 August 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had not charged the resident for the play equipment in previous years therefore no refunds were due. It also said the management fee was a fixed fee which it was allowed to apply as per the terms of the tenancy agreement. It explained what the charge was for as well as the minor discrepancies in the amount refunded, caused by the way the numbers were rounded up in its computer system. It confirmed the error had already been corrected. This was all reasonable.
  5. It would have been understandably frustrating for the resident that it took 5 months for the landlord to check the previous years’ accounts and confirm that no further refunds were due. However, the landlord did the right thing eventually using its complaints process to offer this conclusion to the resident.
  6. The landlord also provided the resident with a map of the area it was responsible for surrounding the property. This evidenced the areas maintained under its grounds maintenance contracts. This was a reasonable response to the residents queries around ownership of the communal areas surrounding her property.
  7. Where failures are acknowledged by a landlord, as in this case, we assess whether the landlord has taken appropriate and proportionate steps to put things right. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that, although it had promptly corrected the errors made on her account for that year, it had taken too long to respond to the resident’s complaint and that this had understandably caused her some distress. It apologised and offered £140 compensation in recognition of this. This amount is within the range of awards made by this Service for significant service failures that the landlord has acknowledged and tried to put right. This was a proportionate offer to the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident. The landlord also offered a detailed explanation for each of the charges in question and clarified the process by which its service charges were calculated. This was reasonable.
  8. The landlord’s internal emails in July 2023 show a query about whether a charge of £117.33 was applied to the service charges accounts for the year 2017 to 2018 for the play equipment. However, the landlord noted that the resident had missed the deadline by which she could dispute charges for that year. The resident has also informed us that she was charged for the play equipment in 2015 but does not still have the statement of account to evidence this. This Service may only consider complaints brought within a reasonable timeframe, usually 12 months of the issue occurring. Therefore, we have not reviewed the service charge accounts dating this far back and no assessment has been made of this period. However, in the interest of transparency, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to share all service charge accounts, dating back to at least 2015, with the resident. It should then confirm to the resident whether the charge was applied in this year. If the charge was applied, it should consider whether it is appropriate to issue a refund.
  9. In conclusion, the landlord accepted the errors it had made on the resident’s service charge account, corrected the statements and reissued them in a timely manner. It also checked previous years charges and confirmed the ongoing maintenance arrangements of the areas in question. Although it took too long to resolve the issue, the landlord apologised for the delays in its handling of the matter, and paid compensation to the resident. This investigation has found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in handling the resident’s concerns.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of errors made on her service charge account.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s request for the management fee to be refunded is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £140 compensation offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should share all service charge statements with the resident, dating back to at least 2015. It should then be able to reconfirm to the resident whether a charge for the play equipment was applied in the service charge accounts for any of these years. If a charge was applied, it should consider whether it is appropriate to issue a refund and confirm its decision in writing.