Places for People Group Limited (202442863)

Background

1. In September 2024, the landlord sent the resident the actual service charge statement for the year ending March 2024. The statement showed £624.40 overspend, which the landlord explained was due to unforeseen repairs, health and safety expenditure and changes to its cleaning services. The resident told us that, in his opinion, the landlord’s decision to change its cleaning services was unjustified. He said the landlord was not transparent with its service charge decision, and he would like a full breakdown of the end-of-year account to justify the overspend he was now required to pay.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to change the cleaning service and the handling of the information requested.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration.

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

Summary of reasons

4. In May 2023, the landlord inspected the property and noted that the cleaning standards were unsatisfactory. This was clear in the comprehensive and timestamped estate inspection form. The lease requires the landlord to upkeep the communal areas, including cleaning and clearing the stairs and all emergency escape routes. It was therefore appropriate that it took prompt action to address this issue. Its decision to increase the cleaning frequency from fortnightly to weekly resulted in a significant improvement, as shown in the September 2023 estate inspection report.
5. However, it remains unclear why the landlord chose to replace the cleaning contractor in October 2023. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (the ‘Act’) requires landlords to consult leaseholders when entering into a qualifying long-term agreement lasting longer than a year, for which the leaseholder would be expected to contribute £100 or more per year. It appears that these requirements were met in this case, as the new contractor carried out the cleaning in October 2023 and was replaced in November 2024. The overall expenditure for the resident was greater than £100. In the absence of consultation, the Act caps the annual contribution at £100. The landlord was unable to clarify the terms of this cleaning contract and whether it was exempt from the consultation requirement. Consequently, we have seen no evidence that the landlord had due regard to the obligation placed on it under the Act.
6. Moreover, the evidence provided by the landlord does not demonstrate that the resident was supplied with sufficient information to understand the costs. The resident was entitled to review the evidence of spending for any service charges the landlord sought to recover. Therefore, soon after the resident requested a forensic breakdown of the account deficit for ‘Maintenance and Repairs’ ‘Ground Maintenance’ ‘Health and Safety’, this should have been provided in full.
7. We can see from the correspondence that some level of information was provided. However, the resident disputed that this was the correct information or sufficient to explain the charges in question. The landlord has not shown us that the information shared was satisfactory.

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.