Aster Group Limited (202424564)

Background

1. The resident pays a variable service charge. The landlord introduced a new charge for water hygiene testing for the garden tap at his block. The resident queried the charge and disagreed it was necessary to test the garden tap. He also challenged the validity of the charge. He complained about the landlord’s approach in testing and the charge for it. He remained dissatisfied after completing the complaint process because the landlord did not agree to change its approach. He wanted the landlord to stop testing and remove the charge.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the service charge for water hygiene testing.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the service charge for water hygiene testing.

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

Reasons

4. The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that happened or comment on all the information we reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charges. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord’s charge for water hygiene testing was too high. This part of the complaint was ultimately about the level of the charge and so we did not investigate it. A court or tribunal is best placed to consider complaints about the level of service charges.

What we did investigate

6. We looked at how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and what action it took to resolve any issues.
7. The landlord introduced a service charge for water hygiene testing from April 2022. The only communal water supply is the garden tap. The service charge covered testing and risk assessment by the landlord’s specialist contractor every 2 years and weekly visits by its staff to run the tap to flush water through the system. We can see the landlord’s contractor had completed testing and risk assessment from at least 2020. It is not clear what led to the landlord introducing the charge in 2022.
8. Part of the resident’s complaint is that he does not agree that the garden tap is subject to health and safety regulations concerning the control of Legionnaires’ Disease. The landlord sent him multiple emails explaining its responsibilities for health and safety and why it felt testing and flushing were necessary. The landlord’s responses were reasonable in respect of the need for testing.
9. In our view, the garden tap is a simple cold water system which would be subject to the regulations concerning the control of Legionnaire’s Disease. This is because the regulations cover both hot and cold water systems. While the risks may be low, it is appropriate for the landlord to include the tap in its risk management plan. It is also appropriate for it to follow any recommendations from its risk assessments to manage the risks identified. The evidence shows the landlord followed its Water Safety Policy and Procedure in carrying out testing and risk assessment every 2 years.
10. However, under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord should have consulted with him before introducing a new service charge. Despite the extensive communication with the resident between March 2022 and February 2024, there is no evidence the landlord considered if it had introduced the new charge properly. This meant it did not identify it had not followed the right procedure.
11. The resident’s complaint of 1 May 2024 was initially about whether the testing and flushing was needed and the cost of the service. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 May 2024 gave reasonable responses to the points raised by the resident.
12. In his escalation request of 8 August 2024, he told the landlord it had no authority to charge him for water testing. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 September 2024 gave a good explanation of the risks of Legionella and its obligations to manage them. It also explained in detail when testing and the charges were introduced and why, and how it had calculated the charges. However, it did not address its ability to charge him for the water testing. As such, it again missed the opportunity to realise it had not followed a proper process when introducing the charge and to put things right.
13. In May 2025, the landlord told us it had realised it should have consulted with the resident before introducing the new charge. It said it would refund him for all the charges it had made and consult with him to introduce the charge properly. We can see it wrote to him on 19 June 2025 to consult over introducing the charge but it did not refund the previous charges as it said it would.
14. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have also ordered it to refund the charges for water hygiene testing from April 2022 up to when the charge was properly introduced.

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.