Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Amplius Living (202418221)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418221

Amplius Living

6 August 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal grounds maintenance.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow in a retirement complex. The complex has communal lawns, flowerbeds, hedges, paved pathways, and a shared parking area. In accordance with the lease agreement, the resident pays a variable service charge which, in part, covers the cost of maintaining the communal grounds.
  2. The resident said that in April 2024 the landlord changed its grounds maintenance contractor (GMC). On 17 May 2024 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the condition of the grounds. And on 19 May 2024 the resident complained about the standard of work completed by the GMC on their last visit. The resident also complained that the GMC had left a bench unbolted from the floor. The resident said this was a trip hazard.
  3. On 29 May 2025 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it had signed contracts with 2 new GMCs and over the next 2 months it would focus on putting in place a comprehensive specification across all its housing schemes. The landlord acknowledged that in some locations the new GMC had to temporarily carry out a very basic service. The landlord said it had set up a robust management process and a digital portal for auditing which allowed it to track visits and ensure a consistent and high-quality service. The landlord said any missed visits in April and May would be rescheduled and it was working on a customer portal to give residents visibility of scheduled visits. And the landlord confirmed the GMC would return the bench to how it was originally found.
  4. Following this, it is unclear how many visits took place, but the GMC must have carried out at least 1 site visit. This is because on 24 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and raised concerns that after a recent visit it had not collected grass cuttings, and that the grass, boarders, hedges and shrubs had been left looking untidy. On 28 June 2024 the resident asked for a review of their complaint on the basis that the grounds maintenance had not improved. The resident also noted that they were paying for the maintenance by way of a service charge.
  5. On 16 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said there had been a service failure and it apologised for the issues the resident had experienced over the past few months. The landlord said it had worked with the GMC to significantly improve maintenance. It said the GMC had been given a specification which included mowing lawns, pruning hedges, shrubs and boarders, and weeding alongside general upkeep. The landlord shared a link to an electronic version of the specification and offered to send the resident a hard copy. It also said it had a robust contract management system to make sure work was completed to a high standard. It said it was working to ensure there was an immediate improvement, and it was committed to restoring the appearance of its schemes. The landlord noted the residents concerns about the service charge and said any missed visits between April and June would be rescheduled. And the landlord confirmed the next visits were scheduled for the weeks commencing 15 July 2024 and 29 July 2024.
  6. The GMC did not attend on the week commencing 15 July 2024 or 29 July 2024. On 5 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to raise further concerns about the missed appointments. On the same day and in response to the resident’s concerns the landlord asked the GMC if it could attend before the next scheduled visit on 13 August 2024 and when it did visit, to cut the brambles back as some were at eye height.
  7. On 6 August 2024 the resident brought their complaint to this Service.
  8. On 13 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said the GMC had missed the visit scheduled that day. In response to this the landlord contacted the GMC again. It asked the GMC to treat the issue as a matter of urgency and let it know as soon as possible when it would be attending. The resident called the landlord on 18 August 2024 and 19 August 2024 to advise that the GMC had still not attended. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord contacted the GMC again and asked when the next visit would take place. The landlord contacted the GMC again on 2 September 2024 as it had not had a reply to its earlier emails. The GMC apologised and confirmed it would schedule a visit for 5 September 2024.
  9. On 5 September 2024 and 6 September 2024 the resident called the landlord and said the GMC had not attended. And the resident raised further concerns about the brambles and the length of the grass, which they said had grown to a height of 10 feet in some areas. The landlord checked its records and said the GMC had not attended since July 2024.
  10. There were several calls between the landlord and the resident on 24 September 2024, and the landlord assured the resident that the grounds maintenance would be completed on a fortnightly basis going forward.
  11. The resident has recently told this Service that so far this year the GMC has completed 2 visits a month, excluding February when 1 visit took place. And they have said the GMC has not completed work in line with the specification on any of these visits. The resident has also said they made a new complaint about the grounds maintenance earlier this year.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has asked for a partial refund of the service charges they have paid as they do not feel the costs reflect the service they have received. This is an issue about the reasonableness of the service charge. The Ombudsman is unable to consider whether a service charge is reasonable. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) can consider disputes about the reasonableness of a variable service charge. The resident may wish to refer their dispute to the FTT. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice before taking any action.
  2. In their initial complaint, the resident raised concerns about a bench not being returned to its original position. Since bringing the complaint the resident has confirmed this has been resolved. So, this investigation will not consider this point further.
  3. The resident has told this Service they have made a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the grounds maintenance. At the time of writing this report, this Service has not been provided evidence that the landlord has sent a stage 2 response to this new complaint. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints where the landlord’s complaint procedure has not been completed. As such, this investigation will focus on the complaint from May 2024. This investigation will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance. It will consider events up to the end of September 2024 to determine whether the landlord put in place the immediate improvements mentioned in its July 2024 stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of the grounds maintenance

  1. The lease agreement says the lessor will keep the gardens, lawns, roads, footways, hedges, fences, or any other part of the lessor’s estate in good and tidy order. The landlord is the lessor and it has not disputed that it is responsible for maintaining the communal garden areas that the resident has complained about.
  2. The landlord’s Leasehold Management Policy says that a service charge will cover the cost of providing and maintaining all services provided to the leaseholder. It includes ground maintenance as a chargeable service. However, it does not specifically set out how the grounds should be maintained.
  3. The resident says the landlord changed GMCs in April 2024 and from that point onwards there were issues with the standard of grounds maintenance work carried out and a number of scheduled visits were missed.
  4. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the service the resident had received. It said to resolve matters it would focus on implementing a specification for grounds maintenance works over the next 2 months. And the landlord said it had set up a management process and a digital portal for auditing, to allow it to ensure a consistent and high-quality service.
  5. Sometimes there will be disruption to regularly scheduled work, this can happen for several reasons. In this case the landlord accepts that after changing GMCs its service fell short, and it showed a willingness to try to resolve things by apologising and setting out how it aimed to deliver high-quality grounds maintenance going forward.
  6. However, the landlord was still required to keep the estate in good and tidy order, in line with the lease agreement. And the landlord has provided no evidence to show the number of visits or what work was carried out by the GMC between 29 May 2024 and 16 July 2024. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of works carried out so it can satisfy itself and residents that there is no shortfall in service, or where there has been a shortfall, that service is improving. In this case the lack of evidence means the Ombudsman simply cannot say the landlord resolved the grounds maintenance issues after the stage 1 response.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised again for the issues the resident had experienced. It said to resolve matters the GMC had now been given a specification for the ground works. The landlord again said that it had a contract management system in place to make sure work was completed to a high standard, and that it was working to ensure there was an immediate improvement, and it was committed to restoring the appearance of its estates.
  8. The specification is helpful as it shows what work the landlord expects the GMC to carry out to keep the estate in good order. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show grounds maintenance work has been completed in line with the specification. It is unclear how many visits were completed between May and July or what work was carried out after its stage 2 response to resolve the resident’s concerns. And the evidence this Service has been provided shows that appointments continued to be missed in July, August, and September.
  9. Overall, there was a failure from the landlord in its handling of the grounds maintenance after it changed GMCs. The landlord has accepted and apologised for this, and it has set out how it will resolve the issue. If the issue had been resolved, it is likely that the Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress. However, while the landlord has said it was working to ensure an immediate improvement to the grounds, it has not provided this Service evidence to show there was any improvement to resolve the resident’s concerns.
  10. In the Ombudsman’s December 2023 report on service charges we said when services are provided at estate level, it’s best practice for landlords to conduct regularly scheduled checks or ad-hoc spot checks to confirm work or services have been completed or provided to an appropriate standard. We also said where residents complain about the level or standard of service, landlords may want to increase the number of checks in the shorter term. While the landlord said it had a contract management process and auditing system in place to ensure a high-quality service, it has not provided evidence to show it monitored the GMCs attendance or carried out spot checks or other reviews to satisfy itself or residents that the GMC was completing work to a satisfactory standard.
  11. It is clear that the resident has spent a significant amount of time pursuing the matter, which could have been avoided if the landlord had resolved their concerns at an earlier stage. The resident has also told this Service about their loss of enjoyment of the communal grounds. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the trouble and upset the landlord’s handling of the grounds maintenance has caused. The amount ordered is in line with our remedies guidance for when there have been delays in resolving matters. We have also ordered the landlord to confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman what steps it takes to monitor the ground maintenance to ensure communal areas are maintained to an acceptable standard.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s Complaints Policy, the landlord is required to acknowledge a resident’s complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. The resident made their complaint on 19 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint within the required time.
  3. The landlord’s Complaints Policy also requires it to acknowledge a complaint at stage 2 within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. While the landlord has said the resident escalated their complaint on 1 July 2024, the telephone notes provided show the resident asked the landlord to re-open their complaint on 28 June 2024. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the 28 June 2024 is the date the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 July 2024 and sent its stage 2 response on 16 July 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response in time. But in acknowledging the complaint in 7 working days, the landlord has caused a slight delay which is not in compliance with its policy or the Code. However, there is no evidence this impacted the resident or caused any detriment to the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of communal grounds maintenance services.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the failings identified in this report.
    2. confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman what steps it takes to monitor the ground maintenance to ensure communal areas are maintained to an acceptable standard.