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 & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202303582)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303582

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 May 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 service charge.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder.
  2. On 20 September 2022 the landlord provided the resident with their final statement for their 2021/22 service charge. The statement explained that the resident could view supporting invoices by making a request under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the supporting invoices on 25 October 2022. It stated this was in response to a request from the resident.
  4. On 16 January 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. They outlined a number of the charges that had been made and asked the landlord to either provide further supporting information or to refund the charge.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 January 2023. It provided a response to the queries the resident had raised and a refund for one charge.
  6. The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 14 February 2023. They disagreed that the landlord had provided sufficient information. They again asked the landlord to provide further supporting information or to refund the charges.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. It concluded that its stage 1 response had provided sufficient explanation and information to address the resident’s concerns. It advised that if the resident believed the service charge was unreasonable then they could apply to the First Tier Tribunal (the tribunal).
  8. The resident confirmed they would like this Service to investigate their complaint. They stated they wanted the landlord to refund all unclear, unexplained, or unreceipted charges.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.d and 42.f of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Scheme. There are two reasons we will not investigate this complaint:
    1. Firstly, the complaint relates to the level of the service charge, which the Ombudsman does not investigate.
    2. Secondly, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to seek a remedy through the tribunal.

The complaint is about the level of service charge

  1. 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 the rent or service charge increase.
  2. The specific issue in this case relates to the payability of the charges in the absence of invoices in response to a request under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. Having carefully considered all the evidence on this case, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the resident’s complaint is about the level of service charge. This is because the primary focus of the complaint appears to be whether the charges made by the landlord are reasonable or are ones that the resident is liable to pay. Put another way, the resident disputes the level of the charge the landlord is claiming. The fact that the resident and the landlord disagree about what the service charge should be is an indicator the complaint relates to the level of the service charge – as opposed to the landlord’s handling of it. That means we will not investigate the complaint in accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme.

The complaint is better dealt with by the tribunal

  1. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The resident believes the landlord should not charge for items it does not have invoices for. The landlord has set out reasons why some of the service charge invoices are not available to it. For example:
    1. Buildings insurance which was based on the whole premium to the landlord across all its stock.
    2. Caretaking costs which were overheads, salaries and materials.
    3. A management fee, which it charged for services.
  3. Section 30A and Schedule 1 of the Act set out the resident’s rights in respect of insurance. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 allows the resident to request ‘associated documents’ which includes evidence of payment of any premiums.
  4. There are not likely to be invoices available for salaries, overheads, and materials in the same way as there might be for utility use or fly tipping removal. 
  5. Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states the First-Tier Property Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether a charge is payable and, if it is, the amount which is payable. As it is the resident’s position that some of the charges are not payable – it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the tribunal to deal with this as it was set up to do so. The tribunal may consider:
    1. Whether any section 22 request was valid and validly served.
    2. The adequacy of the landlord’s response to the section 22 request.
    3. Whether a request under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 been made.
    4. In any event, whether the costs are payable by the resident.
  6. The appropriate body to consider the resident’s concerns is the tribunal who can consider these points and offer a final and binding decision on the basis of the law and the lease. That will offer finality to the matter. This would include determining whether a service charge cost had been reasonably incurred and, if so, whether the resident’s individual charge had been set at a reasonable level.