Amplius Living (202345463)

Background

1. The resident received a letter in September 2023 about service charges owed. He told the landlord he didn’t believe he should be paying the service charge as he said he received a letter in 2010 that said would not be required to. He wanted the landlord to remove the service charges and contacted our services in March 2024 as he was unhappy with the response from the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for clarification of service charges from September 2023.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for clarification of service charges from September 2023.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

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 landlord’s response to the resident’s request for clarification of service charges from September 2023.

5. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 21 September 2023. It said the resident owed a deficit of £229.85 towards service charges for the year ending 31 March 2023. The resident contacted the landlord in response on 11 October 2023 and said he had lived in the property since 2007 and had never received any additional charge other than his monthly rent. He asked what the amount owed was in relation to, what caused the additional charges to be incurred, and asked for the landlord to provide a copy of the section of his lease that specified he was responsible for paying additional charges.
6. Although we have seen evidence of an undated letter explaining that there were upcoming changes to the 2022/23 statement, the resident had not made any payments towards service charges for over 10 years. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the reasons for the upcoming changes.
7. The landlord responded 2 days later and attached the service charge budget for 2022. It explained that the landlord had carried the management company cost for more than a decade but had not passed on the charge to the resident. It explained the landlord was not looking to backdate any costs for the previous 10 years. However, it had decided that the costs incurred should now be passed to the residents.  The landlord also provided the service charge budget. Although it failed to highlight the section of the lease in question, it provided the section on 19 October 2023, when the resident made the request again.
8. Between October and December 2023, the landlord remained in regular contact with the resident. The resident explained that in 2010 he was told that there would be no service charges for the ground’s maintenance. We have seen the letter dated 1 September 2010 which says the resident “will take full responsibility for undertaking your own grounds maintenance [and] will no longer be responsible for the payment of service charge in relation to the provision of grounds maintenance”. The landlord confirmed that the area referenced in 2010 was not part of the service charges. The resident also disputed the service charge responsibilities for the areas outside of his close including park on the estate that had not been built when the resident moved into the property. The landlord explained that a general clause in the lease covered all communal areas and provided maps to show the areas the resident had service charge responsibilities of.
9. The resident complained about the landlord’s responses on 10 January 2024. He reiterated that he had not paid service charges since 2010 and had a letter that opted out of service charges. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 1 February 2024. It explained again that the 2010 letter concerned grounds maintenance for the areas outside of the property and were not included in the current service charges. It also explained that the resident’s solicitor should have checked all legal documents and explained the service charges in full at the time of purchase. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 April 2024. The landlord responded on 1 May 2024 and reiterated the stage 1 response.
10. The Ombudsman has considered the terms of the lease and the landlords response. Under section 3.4.1 of the lease, the resident is responsible for “the reasonable cost of repairing maintaining renewing and as cleaning as the case may be any boundary walls fences hedges and of any access roadways and footpaths and of any communal gardens or facilities shared by the Leaseholder with others (hereinafter together referred to as communal facilities”. This means that as per the terms of his lease, the resident has a responsibility for any of the shared areas identified on the plan 1 and plan 2 map within the lease agreement for the estate.
11. The landlord explained in detail the reasons that the lease allowed it to charge for service charges in the estate. It also explained that it had shouldered the burden of the service charges for the previous decade but could no longer continue. It explained it would not look to recoup any lost funds from the previous 10 years. However, when it initially sent the service charge request, it should have explained the reasons for the changes to service charges. Better communication at the earliest stage may have resolved the issue, as the resident said he was confused about the changes and worried about the unexpected bill. We’ve made a recommendation for the landlord to consider the impact this would have on a resident who hasn’t been paying service charges for a significant amount of time.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

12. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It says it will acknowledge a stage 2 escalation request within 2 working days and issue the stage 2 response within 10 working days.
13. The resident raised his complaint on 10 January 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the request in 6 working days. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 February 2023, 17 working days later. This did not comply with the complaints policy.
14. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 April 2024 expressing unhappiness with the landlord’s response. The landlord acknowledged the escalation 5 working days later which did not comply with policy. However, it issued the stage 2 response on 1 May 2024, which was in line with its complaint policy.
15. Although the delays experienced were minimal, the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint was not in line with its policy, and the landlord did not acknowledge the failures within the responses.

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.