Lambeth Leaseholders Challenge Council Service Charges, Lambeth 2026

Key Points

• Lambeth leaseholder Tracey Gregory challenged the council’s report on the Homeownership Service and Leaseholder Experience at a Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee meeting on September 30.
• Ms Gregory said the report offered “little reflection” of leaseholders’ actual experiences and did not adequately address the consequences of errors in service-charge calculation, allocation and administration.
• She referred to a First-tier Tribunal case in which leaseholders were charged for maintaining 10,000 square metres of grounds although the estate’s grounds covered 1,400 square metres.
• Ms Gregory also said leaseholders had been charged more than £100,000 for a door-entry system which did not work.
• Antony Wynne of the Lambeth Homeowners’ Association said changes proposed in the council report would not resolve wider concerns unless contract management was addressed.
• The association said it had repeatedly sought information about the money Lambeth Council had recovered from contractors after refunds to leaseholders.
• Lambeth has about 30,000 council properties, including approximately 9,500 leasehold properties.
• The scrutiny committee agreed to create a working group comprising three leaseholders and three committee members.
• The committee also advanced a recommendation to recognise the Lambeth Homeowners’ Association as a body representing leaseholders, subject to governance arrangements.

Lambeth (South London News) October 8, 2026 – Lambeth Council leaseholders have raised concerns about service-charge calculations, contractor management and the accuracy of a council report intended to assess the experience of homeowners in the borough, with councillors agreeing to establish a joint working group following evidence submitted at a scrutiny meeting.

What concerns were raised about Lambeth Council’s leaseholder report?

Lambeth Lambeth Council October 5, 2026 – A leaseholder has criticised a report on the council’s Homeownership Service and Leaseholder Experience, telling councillors it did not sufficiently represent the difficulties faced by leaseholders across the borough.

The issue was discussed at Lambeth Council’s Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee meeting on Wednesday, September 30. The committee considered a report on the council’s service for leaseholders and other homeowners, which is responsible for supporting residents through different stages of property ownership.

According to the council’s description of the service, the Homeownership Service has responsibilities that include supporting homeowners while balancing the authority’s role as landlord, service provider and manager of public money.

However, Tracey Gregory, a Lambeth leaseholder, told members of the scrutiny committee that the report contained “little reflection” of the lived experience of leaseholders or of the services they receive.

As reported by MyLondon, Ms Gregory said the document did not include sufficient background on what she described as the “serious impacts” of mistakes relating to the calculation, distribution and administration of service charges.

Service charges can be billed to leaseholders for services, repairs, maintenance and works connected to council-owned estates and properties. The accuracy of those charges, and the information used to calculate them, formed the main focus of the concerns raised at the meeting.

What example of overcharging did Tracey Gregory give?

Ms Gregory referred committee members to a recent First-tier Tribunal case involving an estate where leaseholders were charged for the maintenance of grounds which were significantly larger on the council’s calculation than in reality.

As reported by MyLondon, she said:

“Just one specific example of an error in calculation in a recent First Tier Tribunal case found that leaseholders on an estate were being charged for maintenance of 10,000 square metres of grounds, when in fact the grounds for the estate were only 1,400 square metres.”

She added:

“Leaseholders were being charged for maintenance of an area seven times larger than the actual size of the grounds. They’d also been charged over £100,000 for a door entry system that didn’t work, and these kinds of errors are being replicated across the borough.”

The comparison made by Ms Gregory indicated that the maintenance charge in that example was based on an area more than seven times the size of the estate grounds identified in the tribunal case.

Her evidence also drew attention to the cost of a door-entry system which, she said, was not working despite leaseholders being charged more than £100,000 for it.

Ms Gregory said these were not simply isolated issues affecting individual residents. She told the meeting that similar errors were being repeated elsewhere in Lambeth, although the report did not set out individual estates or the total number of residents affected.

Why did the leaseholder say service improvements alone would not be enough?

Ms Gregory said the concerns extended beyond the council’s Homeownership Service itself. She argued that mistakes in charges could result from wider weaknesses in the way the council assessed and allocated costs, including work involving other departments.

As reported by MyLondon, she said:

“These errors are due partly to the deficiency in systems for cost assessment and allocation, often by other departments, such as the estate management and capital works. Simply improving leaseholder services alone is not enough.”

Her statement placed the issue in the context of how charges are formed before invoices or demands are sent to leaseholders. It suggested that improvements to communication, customer support or administration within the Homeownership Service would not by themselves address concerns if cost estimates, contract oversight and allocation processes remained unchanged.

The council’s housing services cover a large number of properties. MyLondon reported that Lambeth has around 30,000 council homes, of which about 9,500 are leasehold properties.

The scale of the leasehold estate means that the subject of service charges can affect a substantial group of resident homeowners, including people who may receive bills for planned maintenance, communal repairs, major works or estate management services.

What did the Lambeth Homeowners’ Association say?

Antony Wynne, representing the Lambeth Homeowners’ Association, told the committee that the changes described in the report would not have a significant effect unless the council dealt with what he called fundamental issues in contract management.

As reported by MyLondon, Mr Wynne said that “minor changes” to the service would not make much difference without action to address those underlying matters.

He said:

“It is only when leaseholders have challenged frequently spectacular overcharging, charging for work not done at all or not even necessary, that the amount of money wasted has become apparent.”

He continued:

“The council has had to refund those leaseholders. We have asked many times how much the council has recouped from these contractors, but we have yet to have one answer.”

Mr Wynne’s comments focused on two connected issues: leaseholder challenges to charges, and the recovery of money from contractors where payments or charges have later been disputed, corrected or refunded.

He did not set out a total figure for refunds, contractor repayments or the number of cases at the September 30 meeting, based on the report of the proceedings. The association’s request was for clarity on how much, if any, money the council had recovered from contractors following refunds made to leaseholders.

The concerns about contract management also concerned how works are commissioned, measured, approved and paid for. Leaseholders can be required to contribute towards eligible costs under the terms of their leases, which makes the process of establishing costs and providing clear documentation important to residents receiving such bills.

What action did Lambeth’s scrutiny committee agree?

Following the discussion, Lambeth Council’s Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee agreed to create a working group made up of three leaseholders and three committee members.

The group is expected to provide a forum for leaseholder representatives and councillors to examine the issues raised around the Homeownership Service, service charges and the wider leaseholder experience.

The committee also moved forward with a recommendation that the Lambeth Homeowners’ Association should be recognised as a body representing leaseholders. The recommendation remains subject to the necessary governance arrangements.

Recognition would give the association a formal role in representing leaseholder interests in discussions with the council, although the precise structure, terms and governance requirements were not detailed in the meeting report.

The decision followed evidence from residents and leaseholder representatives that the council’s report did not, in their view, sufficiently reflect the seriousness of billing disputes and concerns around the management of major works and contracts.

What did the wider scrutiny discussion cover?

The Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee’s September 30 meeting considered housing service issues beyond leaseholder experience, including the council’s repairs service and major-works processes.

According to the Open Council Network’s summary of the meeting, Tracey Gregory and Anthony Greenness of the Lambeth Home Owners Association presented evidence that differed substantially from the picture set out in the council’s report.

The summary said concerns included errors in service-charge calculations and administration, questions about accountability for payments made to contractors, and uncertainty over whether the authority had recovered money linked to overcharging.

It also reported that Councillor Pete Elliott, Lambeth Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing, said full responses would be provided and supported the proposal for a working group.

The same account stated that Councillor Scott Ainslie, Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, agreed that contract management required improvement. Councillor Elizabeth Fraser also raised concerns that leaseholders could struggle to understand the service charges presented to them.

The committee’s approach means the concerns aired by residents will now be taken forward through a more focused group involving both elected members and leaseholders.

The working group could examine the information supplied to leaseholders, the processes used for estimating and allocating costs, the handling of disputed charges and the communication of any adjustments, refunds or contractor recovery action. However, the precise remit, timetable and reporting arrangements for the group were not set out in the reporting of the meeting.

How does this affect Lambeth leaseholders?

For Lambeth leaseholders, the creation of a working group provides a route for residents’ concerns to be considered alongside councillors rather than solely through individual disputes over bills.

The key matters raised at the meeting were:

• The accuracy of ground-maintenance calculations.
• Charges for systems or works that residents say were not functioning or were not completed.
• The administration and allocation of service charges.
• The management of contracts and payments to contractors.
• The recovery of funds where charges have been refunded or corrected.
• The clarity of information provided to leaseholders.

The meeting did not establish that every service charge in Lambeth is incorrect, nor did it give a borough-wide total for disputed charges. Instead, leaseholder representatives cited individual examples and argued that underlying systems needed further examination.

The council report considered by the committee was intended to review the Homeownership Service and Leaseholder Experience. The subsequent decision to establish a working group means that leaseholder evidence will now be considered as part of follow-up work by the scrutiny committee and participating residents.

Background: What is the Homeownership Service and why are service charges important?

Lambeth Council’s Homeownership Service supports leaseholders and other homeowners connected with council housing throughout the course of their ownership.

Leaseholders can be required under their lease agreements to contribute towards specific costs connected with their building or estate. These may include repairs, maintenance, estate services, communal facilities and major works. The amount charged can depend on the nature of the work, the costs incurred, the terms of individual leases and the method used to apportion expenses among affected homes.

The service therefore sits between the council’s duties as landlord and property manager, its responsibilities for public finances, and leaseholders’ rights to receive information and challenge charges they believe are unreasonable or incorrectly calculated.

The September 30 scrutiny meeting brought these responsibilities into focus after Ms Gregory and the Lambeth Homeowners’ Association said that the council report did not adequately describe the consequences of errors in service-charge administration.

The committee’s decision to form a working group followed the concerns raised by leaseholders and will allow further discussion of the matters identified during the meeting.

Prediction: How could this development affect Lambeth leaseholders?

The establishment of a working group is likely to give Lambeth leaseholders a more direct channel through which to raise concerns about service charges, major works and the information supplied with bills.

For leaseholders who have already questioned charges, the group may create an opportunity for recurring concerns to be reviewed collectively rather than only through separate cases. It may also lead to clearer explanations of how charges are calculated, allocated and corrected where errors are identified.

For the Lambeth Homeowners’ Association, potential recognition as a representative body could strengthen its ability to present issues on behalf of residents, subject to the governance arrangements required by the council.

For Lambeth Council, the development may result in closer scrutiny of contract-management systems, cost allocation and the way disputed bills, refunds and possible recoveries from contractors are recorded and communicated.