Missing information and the service charge maze: how one email built a residents’ association
By SHAC member David Woodrow
Our residents’ association was born from an accident. In August 2024, our building manager at Peabody emailed every resident about window cleaning — and accidentally used CC instead of BCC. What followed was a week of reply-all emails: complaints, frustrations, shared confusion. Within days, we realised we had all been dealing with the same problems alone. Within weeks we had a constitution, an elected committee, and a formal request for a service charge statement in Peabody’s hands.
I am a homeowner. I bought my Aldgate flat in 2023. When the first service charge bill arrived, it was three times higher than the retention held back by the seller. I asked Peabody for an explanation and for the accounts.
What followed over the next two and a half years taught me something important: asking questions isn’t the problem. The problem is that nobody at Peabody seems able to answer them.
The Numbers That Don’t Add Up
Between 2021 and 2024, service charges in our building rose by more than 120%. The London average over the same period was 41%. Three times the average — with no explanation.
When we finally received partial disclosure in January 2026, three years after my first request, the maths told its own story. The accounts show costs of over £1 million. Adding up every invoice in the disclosure pack gives around £500,000.
Half the supporting evidence simply does not exist in anything Peabody has provided. Yet the law is clear: the ability to evidence costs is central to assessing whether they are reasonably incurred.
Our analysis of the 2025/26 demand letters made things worse. Across 15 flats with comparison data, not a single flat received the expected 11.73% increase. Instead, changes ranged from a drop of 32.3% to an increase of 211%.
A one-bedroomed flat was charged £700.73 per month, which was more than the annual charge of any three-bed flat in the building. For three other households, the demand letters appear to contain outright errors. The apportionment methodology has never been disclosed, despite repeated formal requests so the reasons for the variations has never been explained.
What the Law Says
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 gives leaseholders the right to a certified summary of accounts. Section 22 gives the right to inspect invoices. These rights exist so residents can judge whether charges are reasonable. Landlords must respond within 30 days.
My first Section 21 request was made in November 2023. A second coordinated request from 13 leaseholders followed in December 2024. Peabody admits the deadline was missed. Neither request has ever been answered fully or on time.
Peabody’s Review
The most powerful evidence in our case comes from Peabody itself. In November 2025, after escalation to executive level, Peabody commissioned a review. On Peabody-headed paper, the reviewer concluded that its Section 21 and 22 obligations were not fulfilled, that disclosure was late and uncertified, and that inaccurate statements had been made to residents, our MP, and to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
While Peabody admitted the failings, it also attempted to minimise them, saying that errors had been made “in good faith”. The review promised a full response by 15 December 2025 but it has never arrived.
In February 2026, Peabody’s outgoing Assistant Director of Service Charges apologised. He also admitted the three consecutive years of statutory failure, and that the January 2026 disclosure was presented as complete when it was not. He could not confirm whether the 120% increase had ever been checked for reasonableness. He also made ten commitments to the residents, but none have been honoured.
In March 2026, Peabody’s Managing Director for North East London claimed that she had no power to require the service charge team to respond to residents. That is a managing director admitting that she has no authority over her own team.
The Complaints Process: Delay as a Strategy
I have been through Peabody’s complaints process three times. The process appears designed to close complaints, not resolve them. The pattern has become familiar, and will resonate with many readers. First the complainant gets a response that doesn’t address the issue. The complaints wends its way through an appeals process, and then if the resident hasn’t yet given up in frustration, they must wait years for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate the case.
Whether by design or apathy, the system protects housing associations from consequences. They investigate themselves and find no maladministration.
Peabody’s Excuses
Peabody frequently attributes problems to their managing agents, FirstPort in our case. I am very familiar with FirstPort’s track record and their scrutiny in Parliament. Each time Peabody has blamed FirstPort for an issue, I have submitted a complaint directly to FirstPort myself. On every occasion, they have redirected me back to Peabody, including in response to my statutory Section 21 and Section 22 requests.
Concerns about FirstPort and service charges have already been raised publicly by MPs, highlighting wider scrutiny of the company and sector.
All this could have been avoided. I have sent hundreds of emails, attended multiple meetings, reviewed four complaint responses, and escalated to the First-tier Tribunal and the Ombudsman. None of this was necessary. One meeting with a member of staff who could answer basic questions would have saved hundreds of hours. Instead, the process has consumed years. Nobody expected to be asked. That was the mistake.
The Ripple Effect
This matters beyond our own building and estate. Peabody is an investment partner in the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme run by the Greater London Authority and a signatory to the Mayor’s Service Charges Charter. That Charter commits signatories to several measures that would have helped in our case, for example transparency on apportionment, clear explanations for major cost changes, and accessible challenge and redress. Every one of those commitments has been breached at our address.
What makes this case different is not the facts — they are depressingly common. What makes it different is the documentation. We have Peabody’s admissions in writing, a recorded call with their director, and the report of an independent review they commissioned themselves. They cannot dispute what they have already admitted.
Advice to Tenants and Residents
Based on our experience, we would advise other tenants and residents to follow four basic steps:
- Document everything.
- Request everything the law entitles you to.
- Find others in your building.
- Do not stop when you are ignored — because you will be ignored.
The system depends on you giving up. Keep the faith, and when neighbours look out for each other, even in small ways, it reminds you what this is really about.
SHAC Action on Service Charge Abuse
SHAC’s End Service Charge Abuse Campaign is aimed at ending the legalised financial abuse of tenants and residents. We support members to withhold unjustified charges, get peer support for advice and assistance if they are bringing a case to the First Tier Property Tribunal, lobby MPs, and keep this issue in the public eye through press work. We are also compiling evidence for strategic legal action against government for failing to protect tenants and residents. Find out more about our End Service Charge Abuse Campaign and get involved.
31 March 2026
If you have a WordPress account, get notifications about new articles by subscribing below: