We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Amplius Living (202414452)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414452

Amplius Living

29 September 2025


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s alleged failure to properly manage service charges which she believed led to her incurring extra costs.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident, who is represented by a relative, took on the leasehold of one of the landlord’s properties in 2022. The property is in a development which comprises two separate blocks of flats, (block 1 and 2) each of which has a lift. The resident’s flat is in block 1. For ease of reference, the resident and her representative are referred to in this report as ‘the resident’.
  2. In July 2023 the lift in block 1 stopped working. On 18 September 2023 the landlord wrote to residents saying that it intended to apply to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) for a dispensation not to carry out the usual “section 20” consultation process before replacing it. It considered that it could not go through this mandatory consultation process for major works because the lift needed replacing urgently. It told residents that the replacement would cost £105,361.18. This sum would be split between residents who would have up to 12 months to contribute their share.
  3. The resident made enquiries of the landlord about how these charges had arose, complaining about what she saw as failings in its handling of matters which had led to the high works costs.

 

  1. The landlord provided some information but the resident remained dissatisfied. Bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman. she said:
    1. She wanted the landlord to acknowledge it had failed to ensure sufficient funds were built up over previous years into the major repairs fund.
    2. She wanted the landlord to provide financial assistance to pay for the replacement lift because of what she considered to be that failure.
    3. She wanted its solicitors to provide prospective buyers with the correct information about future capital expenditure. She considered it had failed to do so in this case.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42. f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess whether the major works and service charges implemented at the block were reasonable. That function is undertaken by the FTT, which is better placed to examine service charge accounts and Section 20 disputes in detail, and make legally binding orders on the parties involved. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the resident to seek the outcomes she wants with that tribunal.
  3. The resident also considered that the landlord failed to provide sufficient information on its capital expenditure when the resident purchased her flat. This is a matter that is also outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident is alleging the landlord misled her at the point of sale, this is a legal matter that would be more appropriately examined in the courts.
  4. In summary, the resident’s complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as a landlord’s alleged failure to properly manage service charges, resulting in the resident incurring extra costs, falls under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme.