A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202415044)

Background

1. In April 2022, the resident purchased the shared ownership lease of the property from the previous owner. In September 2023, the resident received her service charge account for 2022 to 2023. This included an additional charge of £5,655 for major works. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about what she described as an ‘unexpected’ charge on 16 October 2023. On 14 May 2024, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about how it had responded to her concerns. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident bought her complaint to us as she remained dissatisfied.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about:
   1. the resident receiving an unexpected major works bill following the completion of the purchase of her property.
   2. how the landlord responded to the resident when she asked for information about the major works bill and how this was going to be paid.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. there was reasonable redress by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint about receiving an unexpected major works bill following the completion of the purchase of her property.
   2. there was service failure by the landlord in how it responded to the resident when she asked for information about the major works bill and how this was going to be paid.

Reasons

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.

The resident receiving an unexpected major works bill following the completion of the purchase of her property.

4. The lease requires the leaseholder to pay a service charge. The lease also gives the landlord the right to charge for repair, management, maintenance, and services linked to the building and estate.
5. The resident complained the landlord misled her during the sale. She said the landlord did not give accurate information about upcoming major works, so the £5,655 major works bill was completely unexpected.
6. The landlord admitted in its stage 2 reply that it failed to include details of the proposed major works and the Section 20 notice in the LPE1 form. It also admitted that it failed to check internally for known works for which Section 20 Notices had not yet been issued. These failures did not place full responsibility for the cost of the works on the landlord.
7. Since the resident was purchasing the property from the seller, the seller had a duty to inform the resident of any future charges they were aware of. The resident’s solicitor would also have been expected to make reasonable enquiries and complete due diligence prior to and following receipt of the LPE1 form.
8. Conveyancing is a legal process, and we do not have the authority to make binding decisions concerning the actions of the landlord, seller, or solicitors during the process. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice about what other options may be available to her.
9. Taking into account the landlord’s acknowledged failing and the significant impact (which was not solely the fault of the landlord) on the resident, we are satisfied its offer to remove the management fee (£513.44) and reduce the remaining amount by a third (a further £1,713.85) was reasonable.

How the landlord responded to the resident when she asked for information about the major works bill and how this was going to be paid.

10. In her complaint, the resident said that, after struggling to contact the landlord’s leasehold team to find out what the bill was for, she contacted its income team. The resident said the income team quickly responded demanding payment and yet there was never anyone to help her with her queries about the bill itself.
11. The first contact we have seen by the resident is an email to the landlord’s income team on 16 October 2023. We have not had sight of the resident’s previous contact with the landlord’s leasehold team, referred to in her complaint. The resident raised concerns about being able to pay the £5,655 and asked for more information about the major works. The resident asked the landlord to provide a copy of all letters it sent to leaseholders about these works, specifically the letter regarding the cost.
12. As the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response, the resident had to wait an unreasonably long time to receive the information she had requested. The landlord did not provide this until 13 December 2023. This was almost 2 months after the resident had made her initial request. During this time, the resident had repeatedly chased the landlord for the information. She had also told the landlord on numerous occasions about the impact this delay was having on her, referring to this causing her ‘serious worry’ and stating that her mental health was ‘suffering greatly from this.’
13. The landlord offered the resident £55 compensation for the delay. However, we are not satisfied this was sufficient to provide redress to the resident for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s failure to provide a proportionate level of compensation has resulted in the finding of service failure in respect of this element of the complaint.
14. We understand why the resident felt upset when the income team asked for payment while she still waited for information. However, we found no fault in the income team’s actions.
15. This is because there is no automatic requirement for the landlord to halt demands because a leaseholder disputes the charge. The only time a pause effectively occurs is when:
    1. the matter is formally before the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), and
    2. legal representatives advise both parties not to take further enforcement steps until the FTT has made its decision
16. Further, having been advised by the resident of concerns about how she would pay the amount demanded, the income team immediately discussed a payment plan with her. Having been advised by the resident that she could not afford a 12-month plan, the income team asked her to propose a timeframe that was suitable for her. The resident advised on 17 November 2023 she could afford to pay £60 per month, which the income team accepted. This was despite this being significantly less per month than the resident would have been expected to pay were she to pay the bill over 12 months. It is noted the income team immediately set up a direct debit for the £60, which the resident said she had not agreed to. However, the detriment to the resident with regards to this was minimal as the direct debit had been cancelled by both parties by 4 December 2023.
17. We also acknowledge the resident’s concerns that a member of the landlord’s income team had been rude to her and had told her she had to pay ‘no matter what.’ However, we have seen no evidence to support this. In its stage 2 response the landlord also said, due to a lack of evidence, it was unable to confirm whether the member of staff had been rude. Nevertheless, it did apologise if the resident felt they had, which was reasonable given the resident had clearly been upset by this.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.