Your Housing Group Limited (202409677)

Background

1. The complainant is the executor of the resident’s estate. The lease sets out the resident must pay a service and amenity charge. The Executor queried whether the charges should still be requested from the estate given the property was vacant. The landlord’s decision was to continue to request the charges as set out in the lease.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. decision to request payment for an ongoing service and amenity charge from the resident’s estate
   2. response to the formal complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. decision to request payment for an ongoing service and amenity charge from the resident’s estate
   2. response to the formal complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Service and amenity charge

4. The landlord correctly followed the terms of the lease, which required service and amenity charges to be paid even when the property was empty. It gave clear explanations at both complaint stages, including pointing to the specific lease clauses that placed responsibility on the estate until the lease was assigned. Its decisions were consistent with the lease and clearly communicated.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord handled the stage 1 complaint in line with its policy, acknowledging and responding within the required timescales. Although there was a delay at stage 2, the landlord acted reasonably by explaining the reasons, agreeing an extension in line with the Complaint Handling Code, and issuing a detailed response within the revised deadline. The delay did not affect the outcome for the resident estate.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. On 2 November 2023 the executor complained the landlord asked the resident’s estate to keep paying the service and amenity charges while the property was empty. The landlord replied on 9 November 2023 and said the charges were shared across the development based on annual costs. It also explained that the lease required payment throughout the agreement, even if the property was unoccupied. This was reasonable because the landlord followed the lease and clearly explained why the charges applied.
7. The executor escalated the complaint in January 2024 as she still felt it was unfair for charges to build up when no services were used. On 29 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It highlighted the lease clauses that set out payment was required, and confirmed the estate stayed responsible until the lease was assigned. Its explanation was fair and in accordance with the lease.
8. We understand the executor feels that continuing to charge for services and amenities was unfair. She described feeling trapped – unable to sell or rent the property while still paying for services that were not being used. We recognise how difficult it is to handle these matters during such a distressing time. While we empathise with her situation, the landlord acted reasonably and followed the specific responsibilities outlined in the lease.

9. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within these timescales. However, it took 14 working days to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint and 30 working days to provide the stage 2 response.
10. The Complaint Handling Code allows extensions where needed, provided the landlord explains the reasons and sets a new deadline. On 7 February 2023 the landlord contacted the executor to request an extension, explained why it was required, and confirmed what additional information it needed. It also provided a revised response date and issued the stage 2 response within that timescale. While there was a short delay at stage 2, this did not affect the overall outcome. The landlord provided a detailed response that addressed all the issues raised.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

11. The landlord’s record keeping was good. It was able to reference the lease and actions it was taking in relation to the property. This meant it could properly investigate the executor’s complaint and provide a detailed response.

Communication

12. The landlord demonstrated the value of clear communication, particularly when explaining complex issues, such as lease terms and shared costs. Providing timely updates, especially when timescales change, also helps maintain trust and transparency, even where the outcome cannot change.