Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202405622)

Decision
Case ID	202405622
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	23 July 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the property while parts of the estate were under construction and plots unsold. The developer had set up a management company, which maintained the land and appointed a managing agent. The landlord was the freeholder and had responsibilities to the resident under the lease. From March 2023, the resident asked for a service charge breakdown, evidence of spending, and an explanation of charges for facilities she said were unavailable. She was unhappy with the standard and consistency of the information and accounts evidence provided.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Service charge queries.
   2. Staff conduct.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the service charge queries.
   2. No maladministration in its handling of staff conduct.
   3. No maladministration in the handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Service charge enquiries

4. The landlord failed to provide clear, accurate, and timely information. Although it later provided further information and offered compensation, this did not fully resolve things because it did not provide lease-based explanations.

Staff conduct

5. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to review the resident’s concerns and by arranging for a more senior officer to complete the review after the resident questioned independence. It was also reasonable that it did not disclose any disciplinary outcome.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord largely followed its complaint process and timescales.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 August 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £263.10 (inclusive of its original award of £263.10) for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of her service charge queries. The landlord must pay any outstanding amount directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence by the due date.	No later than 20 August 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must provide the resident with a written response that: confirms whether it considers the overall service charge to be fixed, variable, or a hybrid arrangement and the specific lease provisions relied upon clarifies its approach to service charge surpluses and deficits, identifying the specific lease provisions relied upon. It must also send us a copy of this by the due date.	No later than 20 August 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 January 2024	The resident complained that she had been given incorrect information about overpayments of service charges being credited back to her, had not received account information requested 10 months prior, and wanted clarity on the charges she had paid for services not received. She also asked the landlord to review its communications from the team responding to her enquiries. She asked it to provide the accounts, pay compensation for stress caused, and possibly take disciplinary action against staff.
12 February 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: the managing agent was due to take over the estate in early spring, and the developer was maintaining the estate in the meantime through its management company the resident’s lease meant she was required to pay service charges for estate maintenance made up of buildings insurance, an admin fee, and third-party management fee it was sorry that the resident had not received the account information to explain the maintenance costs and would continue to chase this up with the managing agent the service charge was a variable rate calculated as fixed, set at the start of the year based on estimates, and no refunds would be given it was sorry she was incorrectly advised about refunds and confirmed a named officer would review the matter but explained that any disciplinary outcome could not be shared.
27 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she said the landlord had not provided a breakdown of her service charge costs or accounts. She also said that staff had repeatedly told her the charges were variable and neither she nor the landlord had identified where the lease stated the charge was fixed. The resident also questioned the independence of the named officer reviewing her concerns about the team.
27 April 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord said: the managing agent had not provided the 2022 accounts and the delay was due to a change in software it accepted that the lack of information was not acceptable but it had experienced difficulties obtaining it from the managing agent the managing agent had confirmed that the 2023 accounts would be provided later in the year, and expected in future to finalise accounts around 6 months after year end (31 December) the management costs had a variable element but the service charges were fixed, meaning no refunds or demands for costs would be requested if this was over or underestimated it was sorry that the resident had needed to raise her concerns multiple times with the team and someone senior would review communications it offered an interim payment of £50 and would revisit compensation once it received all outstanding information.
28 June 2024	The landlord sent an update. It said: the developer had set up a management company to maintain the estate until enough plots were sold, while the managing agent provided budgets for services and costs before taking over the third-party management budget included services such as landscaping, and a sinking fund for future estate costs, such as road resurfacing it had previously reimbursed 50% of the service charge the resident paid for 2022, in part that recognise some of the services had been substandard there was a surplus in 2022 and there was likely to be one for 2023, which would be offset against the next year’s charges rather than credited awarded a further £100 compensation for the distress caused (£263.10 in total).
After the complaints process ended	In response to the update, the resident said the landlord had still not provided evidence of the costs. On 4 July 2024, the landlord sent budgets and expenditure accounts for 2021 to 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanations about her service charges, the delay in providing accounts, and the information provided. She said having to chase the information caused distress and inconvenience. She wanted compensation, its review outcome, and it to improve its service charge handling.

What we found and why

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.

 

 

 

Complaint	Service charges
Finding	Service failure

7. We do not investigate whether a service charge is legally payable or whether the amount charged is reasonable. Those matters are more appropriately considered by the courts or the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s requests for information about the service charge and whether it met its obligations to provide clear, accurate, and timely explanations.
8. Under the lease, the resident must contribute towards the costs of services, repairs, maintenance, insurance, reserve funds and service charge administration. This also states that the statutory protections available to leaseholders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 apply. This includes the right to obtain information about service charges and to inspect documents, either within 1 month of a request, or within 6 months of the end of the accounting period if that is later.
9. Although the landlord relied on the management company and managing agent for some information, it remained responsible for responding to her concerns under the lease agreement and statutory protections. It was therefore expected to make reasonable and timely efforts to obtain the information she asked for, explain any limits on what it could provide, and keep the resident updated.
10. The resident requested information about service charge expenditure and supporting accounts at numerous times between March 2023 and January 2024. Records show the landlord made some efforts to obtain information and provided budget information and updates from the managing agent. However, these responses did not fully address the resident’s requests or provide explanations for why account information was not available. It also failed to demonstrate that it always updated the resident when it said it was awaiting responses from other parties. For example, it told the resident on 28 April 2023 that the managing agent would provide further information within 5 working days. However, there is no evidence of any further action until after the resident chased matters up in June 2023. This delay was unreasonable in the circumstances. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted consistently with either the requirements of the lease or the statutory rights available to the resident.
11. We also find the landlord provided inconsistent and incorrect information about the service charge arrangements. It initially explained that the charge was variable and that surpluses would be refunded to her account. Later it advised the charge was fixed and any overcharges would not be refunded. As a result, the resident was left without a clear understanding of how the charges operated.
12. We find the landlord took some appropriate action through the complaints process. It accepted that its earlier communication about the service charge was wrong. It also acknowledged it had not provided enough information and that delays it from the managing agent was not acceptable. It committed to sharing the accounts once reconciled, said it would review its communication, and confirmed it would consider awarding more compensation. Those were reasonable steps in the circumstances. It was also reasonable not to further delay the resident’s final response to await the information, as doing so would have delayed her right to refer her concerns to our service.
13. Records show the landlord subsequently provided further information, including additional explanations about how the managing agent determined costs, provided budgets and accounts. The landlord answered the resident’s specific follow up questions, including how the surplus from 2022 was calculated. It also awarded additional compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and poor service. These actions were reasonable and, in our view, partially addressed the complaint.
14. While the landlord’s later actions and compensation went some way to putting things right, it did not fully resolve the issue. It did not explain how its position that the service charge is fixed was supported by the lease or how a fixed service charge operated alongside an annual reconciliation process, again with reference to the lease. We have ordered it to provide these explanations.
15. We are satisfied that the compensation of £263.10 appropriately reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of her requests since March 2023. The amount falls within the range our compensation guidance recommends of £100 to £600, which is appropriate where service failings have adversely affected a resident but have not resulted in a permanent impact, as was the case here.

Complaint	Staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

16. The landlord’s decision to review the resident’s concerns about staff conduct was reasonable. It initially said this would be completed by the named officer, a manager. This would have been reasonable and in keeping with the landlord’s complaints about employee’s policy. However, the resident’s concerns went beyond the actions of a single officer and related to the handling of the matter by the team more generally. The resident had also questioned the independence of the named officer. In response, the landlord advised that a more senior member of staff would undertake the review, which was an appropriate step to provide additional oversight and reassurance.
17. The resident said she wanted the landlord to take disciplinary action against staff involved in her enquiries. It was reasonable that the landlord did not disclose whether any disciplinary action had been taken against individual members of staff. Any disciplinary process would be a confidential employment matter between the landlord and its employees. The landlord’s responsibility was to investigate the complaint, acknowledge any service failings, and take appropriate action to put the impact right.
18. The policy states it will respond to complaints about employees in line with its complaint’s procedure. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the matter, including poor communication, delays in providing information, and that it gave inconsistent or incorrect information about the service charge arrangements. This was reasonable and in keeping with our findings set out above.
19. In response to our evidence request, the landlord said it provided service charge training to staff in March 2024. This included staff in the relevant team and more widely. As the complaint concerned inaccurate and conflicting information about service charges, this was an appropriate step to reduce the risk of similar issues recurring.

Complaint	The associated complaint
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of sending an acknowledgement. It could extend this by 10 working days. If it needed longer, it would agree a timescale with the resident. This was broadly in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time.
21. The landlord followed its process informing the resident of the need to extend the timescale by 10 working days at stage 1 and responded within its revised timescale.
22. At stage 2, the landlord also extended the response timescale, this time by 20 working days. It explained this was because it was awaiting information from the managing agent and gave details about how to complain to us. However, it did not agree the extension with the resident beforehand, as required by its complaints policy. The landlord took 42 working days to provide its stage 2 response, which was 2 working days beyond the revised timescale and maximum timeframe of 40 working days set out in the Code.
23. While the landlord did not act in accordance with its policy at stage 2, we saw no evidence of a significant detriment to the resident to warrant making a finding of service failure. The landlord explained why additional time was needed, advised the resident of her right to refer the complaint to us, and the delay was minimal.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord should consider whether it needs a clearer information-sharing process or contractual arrangement with its managing agent. This may help it obtain service charge information promptly and assist in it meeting its obligations under the lease and relevant statutory provisions.

Communication

25. The landlord’s position that it would not share whether disciplinary action had been taken against staff was reasonable. However, it could have considered sharing the outcome of its review in more general terms. For example, it could have explained whether the review identified any further learning or led to any service improvements.