London Borough of Lewisham — case 202429967

Decision Case ID 202429967 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lewisham Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Leaseholder Date 22 May 2026 Background On 24 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord about long-standing scaffolding. She raised a complaint on 25 August 2023 as she was dissatisfied the landlord had not sufficiently addressed her concerns. She asked the landlord to confirm the purpose of the scaffolding, the dates it was in place, and how much it would charge leaseholders.

She raised a further complaint on 26 February 2024 due to concerns about incorrect service charges for the scaffolding. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding service charges for scaffolding. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding service charges for scaffolding. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Reasons The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. What we have not considered We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the part of the complaint about the level and reasonableness of the service charge is better dealt with by the tribunal as they are better placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise.

For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about the level and reasonableness of the service charge. What we have considered When the resident initially raised concerns on 24 June 2023 about the length of time the scaffolding had been in place, the landlord recognised it had not removed the scaffolding within a reasonable timeframe. Although the lease allows the landlord to recover the costs of communal repairs, in cases where its actions contribute to repair delays and increased costs, it should consider whether it is fair and proportionate to recover the associated costs.

The landlord acted appropriately by confirming it would remove the costs of the repairs when it issued the final 2023/24 service charge account in September 2024. On 13 October 2023, the resident queried the 2023/24 service charge bill and requested a breakdown of repair costs. The landlord said it would investigate charges for scaffolding inspections. The resident subsequently raised a complaint due to the delayed responses. In its complaint response, the landlord agreed to credit her account £110.

21 and provide an update on her 2 outstanding queried charges by 29 March 2024. The landlord did not uphold the agreed response timeframe, which was unreasonable. The landlord explained on 8 May 2024 what the work orders covered and said it would finalise the costs by September 2024. Under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), it had up to 6 months after the end of the financial year to provide a service charge summary. Its approach was therefore reasonable.

However, it did not clearly explain its obligations and the reasons for the delay to the resident, so it missed an opportunity to manage her expectations. The landlord sent the 2023/24 service charge actual statement on 10 September 2024. On 5 November 2024, the resident requested a detailed breakdown of the repair jobs and costs under the ‘General Building and estate Repairs’ heading. The landlord sent a breakdown on 3 December 2024, within an appropriate timeframe. It also recognised that it had incorrectly charged the resident for scaffolding costs incurred due to the delay and a duplicate repair.

It credited her account £129.07. The landlord advised on 5 December 2024 that it had no confirmation it would remove the specific charges she queried. On 12 February 2025, it said it correctly charged the resident for the initial scaffolding charges and had removed subsequent scaffolding charges caused by the delay. It was appropriate that it investigated her concerns and explained why she was liable for a portion of the charges. The resident asked whether the cost would differ depending on how long the scaffolding remained in place and requested evidence to show she had been charged correctly, including contractor confirmation and invoices.

Section 22 of the LTA 1985 states that variable service charge payers may, within 6 months of receiving the service charge account summary, request in writing for the landlord to provide facilities for the inspection of the accounts, invoices, records, and any other documents supporting that summary. The landlord must provide the facilities within 1 month of the request. While we have seen an invoice from the scaffolding contractor, it does not clearly show what works or dates the charges relate to.

The resident therefore remains dissatisfied as she cannot confirm she has only paid for the period the scaffolding was initially required for the works. The landlord advised that the 2 work orders related to the substantive scaffolding costs, rather than weekly inspections so the charges would remain. It internally noted that the initial charge for scaffolding is based on a maximum period for the scaffolding to be in place, which is normally 2 weeks. It would then incur a weekly hire charge for any additional time, which is based on a percentage of the original cost.

There is no evidence that it explained this to the resident, so it missed a further opportunity to manage her expectations. Overall, it was reasonable that the landlord recognised the scaffolding delays and removed some of the associated charges. However, it has not provided sufficient supporting information to enable the resident to verify the accuracy of the charges and confirm whether she had been overcharged. To resolve the complaint, the landlord must provide the requested information and pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience and additional time and effort she incurred chasing a resolution.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 19 June 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to provide supporting evidence of the scaffolding costs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than 19 June 2026 3 Provision of information order The landlord must provide the resident with clear and itemised supporting information for the 2023/24 service charge, including invoices or documents that show the dates, description of the works, and costs for the scaffolding charges. It must provide evidence by the due date.