Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202332318)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332318

Kingston upon Thames Council

13 June 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The sales process and its non-disclosure of the plans to carry out major works prior to the sale of the property to the resident.
2. The section 20 consultation process.
3. The funding of and incentive for completing the major works.
4. Leaks to the resident’s roof in July 2020 and August 2020.
5. The resident’s request for a copy of the survey and relevant contract under which the landlord completed the work.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. She purchased the property jointly with a family member on 27 November 2018. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat.
The landlord sent the resident a notice of intention to carry out works under a qualifying long term agreement on 29 November 2019. This related to internal and external redecorations of the block, door entry repairs, roof and concrete repairs.
The landlord removed the roof on 9 July 2020. It found structural issues, which it had to rectify before it could complete the work to the roof. The landlord’s contractors completed the works on 8 February 2021 and handover took place on 23 March 2021 following some snagging work. The landlord sent the resident an estimated notice of costs incurred on 30 August 2021. It estimated her contribution to be £31,471.01.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 18 December 2022. She said the work carried out by the landlord in 2020/21 had not improved the building. She asked the landlord for copies of several documents related to the work as she believed the roof works were not necessary. The landlord responded to the resident on 19 December 2022 but it did not log the resident’s contact as a formal complaint.
The resident raised a further formal complaint on 1 February 2023. She said:
1. The terms of the contract were unclear, and despite requesting a copy of the document, she had not received it.
2. The estimated costs had increased towards the end of the project.
3. She had asked for a copy of the original survey to show the work was necessary, but she had not received it.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and said:
1. The contract was procured in line with statutory and council regulations.
2. The contract was under the defects liability period. Once completed, the final certificate would be issued, and the final accounts formally agreed. It would then inform leaseholders of their actual contributions and the resident could examine any relevant documentation.
3. Despite it delivering the works over the COVID-19 period, it believed communication could have been better.
Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. It confirmed its response at stage 1 and attached an extract from the stock condition survey. It said the contract agreement was a very large document. As such, it would arrange an appointment so the resident could view the relevant part of the contract.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

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 us, 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.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
Part of the resident’s complaint relates to concerns she raised as to the landlord’s handling of:
1. The sales process and its non-disclosure of the plans to carry out major works prior to the sale of the property to the resident.
2. The section 20 consultation process (a mandatory consultation process prior to major works).
3. The funding of and incentive for completing the major works.
After carefully considering all the evidence, these aspects of the resident’s complaint sit outside of our jurisdiction. This is because the resident did not raise these issues in her complaints dated 18 December 2022 and 2 February 2023. Therefore, they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”.
Part of the resident’s complaint relates to roof leaks that occurred during the roof refurbishment programme in July 2020 and August 2020.
After carefully considering all the evidence, this aspect of the resident’s complaint sits outside of our jurisdiction. This is because there is no evidence to show that she raised any further concerns relating to those leaks after this date. We have also seen no evidence to show the resident raised the leaks from 2020 with the landlord as a complaint within the 12 month timeframe. The resident first raised a complaint over 2 years later in December 2022.

Scope of investigation

A substantial part of the resident’s complaint is about the reasonableness and level of the service charge costs following major works to the block. We cannot investigate complaints that concern the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was fair and reasonable. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay variable service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

The resident’s request for a copy of the survey and relevant contract under which the landlord completed the work

The landlord completed the roof works to the resident’s block under a qualifying long term agreement (QLTA) between July 2020 and February 2021. A QLTA is an agreement entered into by the landlord with an independent organisation or contractor for a period of more than 12 months. QLTA’s can include provisions for carrying out general maintenance works to properties, as in this case.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 18 December 2022. She said there was no evidence that the roof work had improved the building. She said she felt the building was in a worse state than it was before the works. She asked the landlord to provide the original building condition survey of the block as evidence the old roof was beyond economic repair. She also asked for a copy of the construction contract (QLTA) with details of the contractor’s guarantee.
The landlord did not raise a formal complaint, which has been addressed under the complaint handling section of this report below. It did, however, provide a response on 19 December 2022. It said the project was at the end of the defects process and it was carrying out inspections. It said it would respond fully on all issues raised following the conclusion of the contract.
However, there is no evidence to show the landlord provided the resident with a full response or gave her any indication as to when it would be able to do so.
The resident chased a response from the landlord on 30 January 2023. She also raised a further formal complaint on 1 February 2023. She said:
1. She did not believe the cost to residents represented best value as the landlord completed the major works under a qualifying long term agreement. The terms of the contract were unclear, and despite requesting a copy of the document, she had not received it.
2. She had asked for a copy of the original survey to show the work was necessary, but she had not yet received it.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 3 February 2023. It said it was waiting to receive the original survey report, which would confirm the remedial works were necessary. It said it would send the information on. It also attached some photographs of the estate. It said the photographs showed deflection (bending or sagging) within the roof coverings. It also attached details of the structural engineer’s involvement, the roof specification and the guarantee for the block.
The landlord sent the resident a further email on 10 February 2023. It said it employed consultants to carry out stock condition surveys. It said the outcome of the surveys influenced its ‘Better Homes’ programme, which started in 2014. It said the programme ran until 2019 and had originally included the resident’s block. However, due to funding issues, it deferred the work to its capital programme, which took place in 2020/21.
The landlord said, since then, it had carried out a further stock condition survey, which meant it had archived the earlier surveys. It said it had made enquiries and looked through its system, but it appeared it had lost the earlier surveys. It said, in response to the resident’s query about the need to undertake the works, its findings showed that the surveys were correct. This was because it needed to carry out structural work to the roof before completing the roof work. The landlord also confirmed, in response to the resident’s request for a copy of the QLTA contract, it was unable to provide a copy. It said it had contacted its legal team for further advice.
The evidence shows it was reasonable of the landlord to archive the surveys carried out pre-2014, given the amount of time that had passed. However, it will have caused the resident concern, and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s actions, that the original surveys had since been lost. Particularly as they were the basis for a significant amount of expenditure. The landlord should have reasonably expected queries of this nature around the time it sent leaseholders their invoices for the work, due to the extent of the charges. Leaseholders have a right under s22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to inspect documents relating to the service charge summary to provide more detail.
The resident responded to the landlord on 13 February 2023. She said, as there was no survey available, she thought the landlord’s reasoning for completing the work was weak. She said she believed the roof could have been patch repaired.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023. It said:
1. The contract was procured in line with statutory and council regulations. There was a full consultation with leaseholders at the time. The ability to include capital programme works was included within the terms of the contract.
2. It stripped the roof of the block on 9 July 2020. Once stripped, it found significant failures within the timber structure. It arranged for a full structural engineers’ appraisal and completed the tender process for the additional works.
3. The contract was still under the defects liability period. Once completed, the final certificate would be issued, and the final accounts formally agreed. It would then inform leaseholders of their actual contributions and the resident could examine any relevant documentation.
4. It carried out the work in line with the terms and conditions of the resident’s lease. Its project team would provide a copy of the survey carried out in 2009.
5. Despite it delivering the works over the COVID-19 period, it accepted its communication could have been better.
Although the landlord identified communication issues within the stage 1 response, it did not consider how this affected the resident or provide appropriate redress.
There is also no evidence to show it considered signposting the resident to the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE), who can provide advice on leaseholder’s rights. Had the landlord done this, the resident would have had the opportunity to obtain the relevant advice and information, without the need to escalate the matter further through the complaints process.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023 as she had still not been able to view the requested documents. She told the landlord she wanted the cost of the roof renewal removed from her invoice.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. The landlord confirmed its findings at stage 1 and accepted there had been communication issues. It said the QLTA was a very large document, and as such, it would arrange an appointment so she could review the relevant part of the contract. It also attached an extract from the stock condition survey.
Although it was reasonable of the landlord to arrange an appointment for the resident to view the relevant parts of the QLTA, it did not address the delays in doing so. It also did not address the communication issues in any detail or consider appropriate redress. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
As part of the stage 2 resolution, after a significant delay, the landlord arranged for the resident to view the QLTA documents on 1 March 2024. However, it informed the resident it could only provide the contract tender documents due to the commercial sensitivity of the contract. It has still not been able to provide a copy of the original survey document.
In summary, there were significant delays in the landlord fully responding to the resident’s request to view key documents. It was unable to provide a copy of the survey as it had been lost. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it missed opportunities to sign post her to LEASE for advice.
Although the landlord agreed to arrange for the resident to view the QLTA as part of the resolution at stage 2, it took a significant period of time to inform her the information was commercially sensitive. It did not act in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles when it failed to offer redress for the identified failings. Therefore, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident first tried to raise a formal complaint with the landlord on 18 December 2022. The resident’s email said she wanted to “make a formal complaint”. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord logged a formal complaint at this point. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord refused to log the complaint for a specified reason.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code April 2022 (the Code) says “when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaint’s procedure within 5 days of receipt”. The resident clearly set out that she wished to complain in her email dated 18 December 2022. Therefore, it was inappropriate of the landlord not to log the resident’s complaint following her request.
The resident made a further request to raise a formal complaint on 1 February 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. This was 13 working days from the date of complaint, and just outside of the timeframe of 10 working days. This was a minor delay and there is no evidence to suggest the resident suffered any detriment as a result.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 March 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. This was 19 working days from the date of escalation and within the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
In summary, the landlord delayed the logging of the resident’s formal complaint when she first raised concerns. This delayed resolution for the resident and caused distress and inconvenience as a result. As such, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the sales process and its non-disclosure of the plans to carry out major works prior to the sale of the property to the resident is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the section 20 consultation process is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the funding of and incentive for completing the major works is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of leaks to her roof in July 2020 and August 2020 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a copy of the survey and relevant contract under which the landlord completed the work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £400 made up of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a copy of the survey and relevant contract under which the landlord completed the work.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
4. Write to the resident giving detailed reasons as to why it is unable to provide the documents requested by the resident. The landlord should also provide a copy of the letter to this Service.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider implementing a policy or process which refers leaseholders to the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) when it receives queries relating to service charge costs.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendations.