Amplius Living (202418079)

Decision
Case ID	202418079
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

1. The resident’s property is a 1-bedroom house. The property shares a communal garden with 3 other properties. The resident has bipolar disorder.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision that it is not responsible for maintenance of the communal garden area.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure in the complaint about the landlord’s decision that it is not responsible for maintenance of the communal garden area.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s communication with the resident has not been clear. It has not fully explained the reasoning behind its decision in an open and logical way.
7. The landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint.

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	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up as follows: £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s decision that it is not responsible for maintenance of the communal garden area.   £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s complaint   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	27 November 2025
2	The landlord is to review its position on the matter, taking into account the findings we have set out in our report.   It should then write to the resident and her neighbours to confirm its position on the future grounds maintenance of the area in question. This should take into account that: There is no tenancy agreement obligation for residents to look after the area themselves. The area is not for their exclusive use. That it is not clear why it was not included in the original grounds maintenance contract.   A copy of the letter sent to the resident must be provided to us.	27 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 April 2024	The resident’s representative told the landlord that the communal grass area was in poor condition and could not be used.
2 July 2024	The resident told the landlord that contractors had not cut the grass behind her property, although other communal areas had been cut.
19 July 2024	The resident complained that no one had responded to her. She asked why the landlord was not maintaining the communal garden. A contractor had told her the area was “not on their list”.
26 July 2024	In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had appointed new grounds maintenance contractors. It explained that only a basic service had been introduced in some areas. It said the grassed area behind the resident’s property was not included in the maintenance plan.
9 October 2024	The resident’s representative escalated the complaint. She said that the area in question was a communal garden and should be included in the landlord’s grounds maintenance plan. She explained that the garden had been maintained until the previous contractor stopped working for the landlord. She said the garden was unusable and that this was affecting the resident’s mental health. She raised concerns about four residents maintaining garden and suggested the landlord visited the area.
15 October 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the site developer previously carried out grounds maintenance. It said its contractor had completed all work in line with the agreed maintenance plan since July 2024. The landlord provided two maps and said the grassed area behind the resident’s property was the resident’s responsibility to maintain.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She said the communal garden could not be used and the landlord should maintain it, as it is a shared space and the landlord had previously cut the grass.

What we found and why

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s decision that it is not responsible for maintenance of the communal garden area.
Finding	Service failure

8. The garden area in question is shared by four households, including the resident, but it is not gated or restricted to those households. The dispute concerns who is responsible for maintaining the grounds. The landlord says the four households jointly share this responsibility. The resident says the landlord should carry out the work and has done so previously.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not state that she is responsible for maintaining the shared garden. In an email to a Member of Parliament, the landlord acknowledged that the tenancy agreement does not include that responsibility. In the context of shared areas such as gardens, any expectation of resident maintenance should be clearly set out in the tenancy agreement. Without this clarity, it is reasonable for a resident to assume that such responsibilities fall to the landlord or are covered by service charges. The landlord has told us that the grassed area is not, and has never been, included in the service charge.
10. The landlord’s estate management policy in use at the time of the resident’s complaint stated “In line with our Grounds Maintenance contractor and service level agreements we will ensure that communal gardens/grassed areas are maintained in line with the contract agreed.”
11. In 2021 the resident and landlord exchanged emails that suggest the landlord may have previously cut the grass in the shared garden. However, the landlord’s position is that the garden has never been part of its grounds maintenance plan or contract. It told us that it has never instructed contractors to maintain the area. This is inconsistent with an email sent to the resident in 2021. In which it said “the grass cutting spec is cut & drop currently as it’s in the contract.”
12. The evidence shows in July 2024 that the landlord considered maintaining the communal garden. It said in an internal email that the area was “not currently on the map to be maintained but if it is communal can add it on as a service charge is paid.” It was reasonable for the landlord to consider including grounds maintenance for this area. It is unclear why it then made the decision not to do so.
13. We also reviewed the landscape management plan and the grounds maintenance plan. Neither document includes the shared garden. As the grassed area was not part of the contract, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy, which says that it maintains communal areas in line with the contract agreed. However it is not clear why the area was not included in the contract that the landlord arranged for communal grounds maintenance.
14. The resident first raised concerns about the condition of the shared grass on 19 April 2024. The landlord told the resident it would arrange for works to be completed. This set the resident’s expectation that the landlord was responsible for the communal garden.
15. In summary the current position is that:
    1. there is no legal obligation for the resident and the other three households to maintain the area as there is nothing in the tenancy agreement that says they are required to as part of their tenancy obligations.
    2. there is no record of the resident being made aware that this was the landlord’s expectation until she raised her complaint.
    3. there are references to the contractor having previously maintained the area. It may be that this was on a goodwill basis rather than being part of any formal agreement. However it is understandable that this has led to the resident reasonably expecting that arrangement to continue.
    4. the landlord’s current grounds maintenance contract does not include this area. It is not clear why this communal grass area was excluded from the grounds maintenance plan. This is because it is the only shared grassed area on the estate that the landlord does not maintain.
16. Taken altogether, our view is that the landlord has not acted fairly in its handling of this matter and it has not fully explained the reasoning behind its decision in an open and logical way. This is because it has told the resident that she has responsibility for a shared area, but this obligation is not included in her tenancy agreement. In addition, it is not clear why this area was not included within the original grounds maintenance contract, and the evidence shows that contractors had carried out some grounds maintenance of the area in the past.
17. The landlord has not fully demonstrated that it can require the resident and her neighbours to maintain the area and its communication around this issue has not always been clear. We have therefore made a finding of service failure. This is because the landlord has not done enough to demonstrate that it has fully considered all the facts and issues when it confirmed its position that it is not responsible for maintenance of the communal garden area.
18. In order to resolve this issue, we have ordered the landlord to review its position on the matter, taking into account the findings we have set out above. It should then write to the resident and her neighbours to confirm its position on the future grounds maintenance of the area in question. This should take into account that there is no tenancy agreement obligation for residents to look after the area themselves, that the area is not for their exclusive use, and that it is not clear why it was not included in the original grounds maintenance contract.
19. After the complaint process ended, the landlord identified service failures and told us it wanted to offer the resident compensation. It acknowledged that it did not recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and said a visit from an officer would have been appropriate. Although the review was a positive step, the landlord did not make a compensation offer to the resident, so this cannot be considered as redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 and stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. It also sets out that a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
21. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition.
22. The landlord provided its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses on time, within 5 working days. Before issuing each response, it attempted to contact the resident by telephone. In both responses, the landlord stated it was acknowledging and responding to the complaint. It did not send a separate formal acknowledgment of the complaint or the escalation request.
23. In the resident’s original complaint, she said she regularly called the landlord but did not receive a response. The stage 1 complaint response does not show that the landlord investigated this issue or provided an explanation.
24. In her escalation request, the resident suggested an inspection of the area and raised concerns about vulnerable adults sharing maintenance of the communal garden. The stage 2 response did not show that the landlord considered these points. This was not in line with the Code and would have made the resident feel her concerns were not fully considered.
25. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling because it didn’t address all the concerns raised.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We did not identify any concerns with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

27. We have commented on the landlord’s communication earlier in this report. The landlord should consider what learning it can take from this case about how it communicated with the resident.