Anchor Hanover Group (202308054)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308054

Anchor Hanover Group

16 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the residents’ concerns about its financial practices and their requests for financial information.

b.     The landlord’s handling of tree maintenance and drainage works.

c.      The landlord’s decision not to conduct monthly estate inspections.

d.     The landlord’s proposal to replace the resident estate manager role with a non-resident manager.

Background

2. This is a group complaint raised on behalf of 64 residents who are leaseholders of flats in a retirement development (the estate). We will refer to the group as ‘the residents’ and the resident who brought the complaint to us as ‘the lead resident’.
3. On 11 September 2017 a survey found that root ingress from nearby trees was causing major structural defects with the drainage system. The landlord held an annual general meeting (AGM) for the development on 31 January 2019 where it informed residents it was working on a 3–year plan to tackle the issue. It also promised that its surveyors would carry out monthly estate inspections. Residents raised concerns at the meeting about the landlord’s management of the sinking fund and a recent service charge increase.
4. In August 2022 the landlord increased the rate of the residents’ contribution to the sinking fund. The landlord agreed with residents’ concerns that it had not managed the sinking fund correctly and offered to pay £67,873.32 into the fund as compensation. On 10 October and 14 November 2022, the landlord began section 20 consultations for tree and drainage works. The estimated costs were higher than that of the original 3-year plan. The landlord offered to pay a £46,681.68 subsidy to cover the difference, rather than fully funding the work from the sinking fund or service charge account.
5. At an AGM on 12 January 2023 the landlord told residents that the resident estate manager had resigned. It discussed the possibility of making it a non-resident role and said it would hold a ballot for residents to vote on it.
6. The residents complained on 21 April 2023. The complaint said:

a.     The landlord had ignored the residents’ repeated concerns about the sinking fund and requests for financial information.

b.     The landlord had begun tree works in 2017 but not completed them which had led to subsidence issues

c.      The section 20 notice estimated tree works to cost £69,000 but the residents had commissioned an independent survey which produced a quote of only £12,000. It also found some of the work recommended by the landlord’s contractor was not necessary. 

d.     The residents wanted the landlord to pay for an independent drain survey as there were confident it would reveal similar cost savings.

e.     The subsidy offered in relation to the increased tree and drainage work costs was inadequate.

f.        The landlord had not followed through on its promise of monthly estate inspections.

g.     The residents were concerned that a non-resident estate management service would reduce the quality of estate maintenance.

7. The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 16 May 2023. It said:

a.     The landlord could provide 6 years’ of sinking fund account information for a fee. It had attached insurance claim information and would provide contractor invoices in June.

b.     The landlord apologised for not completing the tree works. It agreed to use the contractor the residents suggested but it would need to use the existing contractor for an additional survey.

c.      It withdrew the offer to subsidise the tree works as they were now estimated to cost less than the 2017 plan.

d.     The landlord could not procure a new drainage contractor as further delay may increase the cost and impact of the outstanding work on residents. It could not cover the cost of the new survey that was required but asked residents not to concern themselves with the cost, since the landlord would still be covering the difference from the 2017 quotes.

e.     A loss adjuster was managing the subsidence issue on behalf of the landlord’s insurer so the landlord did not have direct control but it would contact them for an update.

f.        The landlord apologised for not carrying out monthly inspections which it said was due to staff capacity.

g.     The estate manager role was under review and the landlord would meet with residents to discuss this at the appropriate time. It assured residents that a non-resident estate manager would provide the same service as a resident manager.

8. The residents escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 4 July 2023 via email, which included a number of appendices. In addition to the issues raised at stage 1, it said:

a.     The residents were not happy that the landlord wanted to charge them for sinking fund account information and that it could only provide 6 years’ worth.

b.     The landlord had not detailed how it calculated the compensation for mismanagement of the fund.

c.      The landlord had not provided insurance claim information or contractor invoices as promised.

d.     The quarterly financial reports the landlord provided were not clear, accurate, or in line with government guidelines and the landlord had not given a clear answer when the residents had asked about the accounting system.

e.     The residents were concerned about inappropriate VAT charges for repair jobs and had identified an error in a financial report which the landlord had not corrected.

f.        The residents did not want the existing contractor to carry out the tree survey.

g.     The residents had obtained a quote for the drain works from an independent contractor who had provided a quote one third of the cost of the landlord’s contractor’s. In light of this they asked the landlord not to use the existing contractor for further work or surveys.

h.     It was unacceptable for the landlord to leave subsidence in the hands of a third party without monitoring their progress.

i.        The landlord had not provided enough information about the intended non-resident manager role and going ahead with it would be a breach of the lease.

9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 31 July 2023, which said:

a.     The landlord would waive the fee for sinking fund account information due to the delay providing it.

b.     It was still in the process of formally procuring the independent tree contractor and had instructed the existing contactor to carry out the new drain survey.

c.      The residents’ independent drain survey and quote was limited in detail and not like for like compared to the existing contractor’s. To obtain a further survey and quote would delay the project further so the landlord would go ahead with the existing contractor.

d.     The landlord had covered issues related to insurance claims, subsidence, monthly inspections, and estate management in previous communications and the stage 1 response. Rather than going into more detail it said it had taken all of the issues into account in its final offer:

1. To pay £67,873.32 into the sinking fund for failure to properly review the sinking fund in 2020 and 2021.
2. To fund any difference in cost of tree works above the 2017 quotes. At the time of the offer, it was anticipated that the cost of the work would be lower than the 2017 quote so no amount would be payable.
3. To cap the cost of drainage work at £36,376.20 with the landlord covering anything above this amount.
4. To reduce the management fee by £12,000 as a goodwill gesture to be included in the 2023/24 accounts.

e.     The landlord had not responded directly to the appendices included in the stage 2 complaint as it felt they were further illustrations of the residents’ dissatisfaction rather than complaints requiring a direct response.

10. The residents escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman. They remain dissatisfied because:

a.     The landlord disregarded the appendices in the stage 2 response.

b.     The landlord has not provided all the requested financial information.

c.      The tree works remain incomplete and the landlord has not provided an update on the subsidence.

d.     The council has said the landlord’s poor management of the trees may result in fines, which residents fear will be added to their service charges.

e.     The drainage works were completed and the contractor offered a 10 year guarantee, but the landlord has chosen not to use them for ongoing work. The residents are concerned this will lead to increased service charges if there are future problems.

f.        The landlord has not paid the compensation it offered.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

11. The Ombudsman is not free to investigate every complaint referred to him. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
12. The residents raised several concerns relating to the landlord’s financial practices. This included the landlord’s responses to their requests for financial information, including sinking fund accounts, contractor invoices, and details of income from insurance claims. The residents requested this information in order to examine the landlord’s financial practices and determine if its offer of compensation was reasonable.
13. The Ombudsman has discretion to consider errors in accounts, content and timeliness of information provided, how payments into sinking funds have been planned and calculated, and the adequacy of landlords’ consultations. However, after careful consideration we have decided that these elements of the complaint would be more appropriately dealt with by a court or the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). This is because the FTT is better placed than us to examine service charge accounts in detail. It can also consider whether the landlord is obligated to share the requested information with residents under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and order it to do so, where appropriate.
14. For the same reason, we have not commented on whether the level of compensation the landlord offered to pay towards tree and drainage works was reasonable. The FTT can review whether the proportion that residents are asked to pay is reasonable and would be better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.
15. Our decision not to consider these aspects of the complaint is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme. This states that we may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.

Scope of investigation

16. Paragraph 26 of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may accept a complaint from a group of residents of the same landlord if the issues and facts are the same. This is to avoid the need for multiple investigations about the same issues.
17. We have decided this is a group complaint because we are satisfied that:

a.     The events that led to the complaint were the same for all residents in the group and all residents were similarly affected.

b.     The landlord dealt with the matter as a group complaint through its complaint process.

c.      The lead resident has the authority of the other residents to ask us to investigate.

18. The tree and drainage works were first identified in 2017. The landlord first promised to carry out monthly estate inspections in January 2019 and first suggested an intention to recruit a non-resident estate manager sometime prior to this. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and while sufficient evidence is available for it to reach an informed conclusion. It is more difficult for landlords to investigate less recent matters as, over time, records are less likely to be available, witness statements and testimonies become less reliable, and it becomes more difficult to verify accounts.
19. For this reason, our investigation has focused only on events from 21 April 2022 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response. Our decision to focus on this period is in accordance with our general approach, which is that we may not consider matters that were not raised as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

The landlord’s handling of tree maintenance and drainage works

20. The landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to the drains and communal grounds of the estate under the terms of the lease.
21. The landlord’s resident handbook sets out timeframes for responding to identified repairs. However, major planned works usually take longer than responsive repairs, especially when the landlord has to carry out a section 20 consultation. While there is no set timeframe for major works to be completed, we would expect landlords to keep residents regularly updated of progress and complete the works within a reasonable timeframe, considering the urgency of and risk presented by the issues in question.
22. By 21 April 2022, the start of the period we are investigating, the remaining tree and drainage works had been outstanding for around 5 years. The landlord told residents at the 2019 AGM that it was liaising with insurers to make a claim for the necessary work. It noted in the minutes that it could only claim for the work/damage as it stood at that time and that it would not be able to claim for further damage should the situation deteriorate. The landlord was aware that the issues were causing subsidence and issues with the lifts, which had at times flooded and been out of service, causing some residents to be trapped in their flats. Despite this, the landlord did not begin the section 20 consultations until 10 October and 14 November 2022. These were inappropriate delays.
23. The landlord shared an Event Review and Analysis Report with residents in December 2022. The report acknowledged it had failed to live up to promises it had made to tackle the issues and detailed the offer to subsidise the increased the cost of works. This was a positive move by the landlord. While we have not assessed whether the amount offered was reasonable (explained in the Jurisdiction section of this report), the principle of paying the difference in costs was appropriate.
24. The residents made a stage 1 complaint on 21 April and the landlord responded on 16 May 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delays and agreed to use the tree contractor the residents had found. The residents asked the landlord not to use the existing contractor for any further works but the landlord said it would have use them for a survey which the new contractor did not have the equipment to undertake.
25. This was reasonable. Under section 20 consultation rules landlords are required to have due regard to resident’s views. The landlord demonstrated it did this by acknowledging the request and explaining its decision.
26. The contractor’s quote was approximately £57,000 less than the 2017 quote. On this basis, the residents wanted the landlord to pay for an independent drain survey. The significant difference between the tree quotes likely led the residents to feel that the landlord’s contractor’s quotes were unreasonably high, particularly as the new contractor said some of the work they had quoted for was unnecessary.
27. While the residents’ concern was understandable, the tree and drain contractors were separate entities and it does not necessarily follow that similar savings would be made by appointing a new drainage contractor. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it was reasonable for the landlord to decline this request, particularly as the outstanding repairs were causing lifts to flood.
28. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer some additional compensation for the extensive delays completing the works. As well as the general distress and inconvenience caused by the outstanding work the residents had spent much time and trouble raising the issue with the landlord at AGMs and via the stage 1 complaint. They also took the time, and paid for, an independent tree survey which resulted in cost savings for the landlord. It would have been reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the residents for the survey.
29. The stage 1 response said the landlord would contact the loss adjuster dealing with the subsidence claim for an update. This was reasonable however there is no evidence that it ever provided an update to the residents.
30. The residents escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 4 July 2023 and the landlord responded on 31 July 2023. The stage 2 response was not appropriate. The landlord did not address many issues which the residents had raised in sections of the complaint they labelled as appendices. We have discussed this further in the complaint handling section of the report. As a result, the residents did not receive a response to the following points:

a.     That the delay completing the tree works had caused subsidence which in turn affected the residents’ insurance premiums and claims history.

b.     Concerns raised about the quality of previous tree works. The residents said tree stumps had not been ground out, replacement trees had not been planted and cut down logs had been hidden behind other trees rather than removed.

c.      Residents asked if an insurance claim related to the felling of three trees had been settled and, if so, where had the resulting income been allocated.

d.     The residents’ request to allocate the subsidy for drainage works to the repairs fund.

e.     The residents’ concerns about the how the landlord handled the contracting of works, with an example given of a job being subcontracted several times.

31. It was reasonable that the landlord maintained its position on using the existing contractor for a further survey. It also offered to cover any costs above the new quote of £12,000, which was positive.
32. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why the residents’ drainage quote was not comparable to the landlord’s contractor’s. This would have given them a better understanding of why the landlord did not agree to proceed with their quote.
33. The landlord did not address the resident’s assertion that it failed to monitor or report on the progress of the subsidence claim. This was not appropriate. The landlord had promised to get an update from the loss adjuster in the stage 1 response but failed to do so. It said it had taken subsidence into account in its compensation package, but it still should have addressed the residents’ comments.
34. The drain works were completed in March 2024 but the tree works remain outstanding. The contractor the residents appointed withdrew from the project in August 2023. The landlord obtained new quotes and said it would begin a new section 20 consultation but we have not seen evidence of any further progress.
35. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord admitted failings in relation to the works and offered compensation in the form of subsidy payments. While these were positives, in our view the landlord has not gone far enough to put things right for the residents.
36. The subsidy payments will rightly ensure the residents do not have to pay increased costs for the works. However, the delays were so lengthy that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer additional compensation to reflect this.
37. The tree works have now been outstanding for 8 years and the drainage works took 7 years to complete. The residents were affected by lifts flooding during that time and other drainage problems. There has been subsidence in some flats which has not been fully resolved. The landlord has also had to make an insurance claim for additional drainage works which will impact the insurance premiums. This may have been avoided had the work been done earlier.
38. For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration. To remedy this, the landlord should commit to completing the work within a reasonable timeframe and also pay the residents additional compensation to acknowledge the impact on them.
39. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends compensation in the region of £200 for service failures with a non-permanent adverse impact on the resident. We consider this to be an appropriate sum, payable to all 64 residents.

The landlord’s decision not to conduct monthly estate inspections

40. The landlord is not obligated by the terms of the lease nor its repairs policy to carry out monthly estate inspections. However, the landlord told the residents in January 2019 that its surveyors would do so, to identify repair issues and advise the landlord on managing repairs on large estates. The residents therefore had reasonable expectations that this would happen.
41. The Ombudsman acknowledges that landlords sometimes have to renege on promises made in good faith for reasons such as lack of resources. However, we expect landlords to proactively notify residents of any changes and explain why as soon as reasonably possible once they become aware. While residents may be disappointed, openness and honesty help landlords to maintain residents’ trust in them.
42. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with residents about the matter in the 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint. It acknowledged in the stage 1 response that it had failed to meet its commitment and apologised. It said it was unable to provide residents the option of this service due to the number of sites covered by each surveyor. It would have been appropriate to clarify whether this had increased since 2019 so the residents had a better understanding of why the landlord’s position had changed.
43. In the stage 2 complaint the residents questioned the landlord’s wording. They felt the landlord’s admission that it had not met its “commitment” to be at odds with the statement that it was unable to provide residents the “option” of monthly inspections. The landlord’s use of the word “option” downplayed the seriousness of breaking a promise it had made to residents, failing to properly acknowledge that this was a commitment rather than a discretionary service.
44. The landlord did not directly address this in the stage 2 response, which was not appropriate. We have discussed this further in the complaint handling section of this report. The landlord said it had taken the issue into account when calculating its total offer of compensation. The offer included specified amounts related to the sinking fund and the tree and drainage works. It did not specify what the £12,000 reduction in management fee was for, therefore we consider this amount to cover all the issues where the landlord admitted failings.
45. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
46. We consider the landlord’s apology and £12,000 reduction in management fee to be appropriate redress for its failure. Had the landlord not made an appropriate offer of redress we would have made a finding of maladministration. We understand that the reduction has not yet been applied to the residents’ service charge account. Our finding is made on the understanding that the landlord re-commits to doing so and confirms when it will be applied.
47. We appreciate the resident’s concerns that less frequent inspections are insufficient for a large estate. However, as the landlord was not obligated by the lease, policy, or legislation to inspect monthly, we are unable to order that it does so. We have, however, recommended that the landlord provide reassurances to the residents on how it will deliver an effective service with less frequent inspections.

The landlord’s decision to replace the resident estate manager role with a non-resident one

48. The residents’ leases state that the landlord covenants to “employ two resident caretakers/wardens for general supervision of the estate and for the answering during the night of emergency calls of the lessee” (the resident). Some residents’ leases specify that the caretakers/wardens should be full time. We have referred to caretaker/wardens as estate managers in this report, which is the terminology used by the landlord and residents.
49. The lease is a binding contract between the landlord and the residents. The terms of the lease can be varied with the agreement of all parties. Where all affected leaseholders and the landlord agree to the proposed change, the lease can be varied by a deed of variation, without the need to apply to the FTT. If the leaseholders do not all agree, the landlord must follow the procedure set out in section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. This process requires that at least 75% of the leaseholders affected by the proposed change provide written consent, and that no more than 10% of those leaseholders formally object. If these conditions are met, the landlord can then apply to the FTT for approval of the variation.
50. The landlord’s Event Review and Analysis report of 5 December 2022 said it currently employed one full time and one part time estate manager. It indicated that only the full time employee was a resident on the estate. The report discussed the landlord’s intention to increase the resident estate manager’s hours and leave the non-resident post vacant when the current part time estate manager resigned. The report stated: “At this stage, the cost and expense of varying the lease is not required as the technical breach of the lease is small and residents are fully aware of the consequences of compliance”.
51. The residents’ complaint concerns the landlord’s proposal to employ only a non-resident estate manager. We have not considered the working hours of the estate managers in our determination. However, it is important to note that regardless of any practical agreement between the landlord and residents, the landlord would have needed to consider the implications on the lease before making any change to the estate manager service.
52. At an AGM on 12 January 2023 the landlord told residents that the resident estate manager had resigned. It suggested that it intended to recruit two new estate managers one resident and one non-resident. It reassured residents that a non-resident manager would provide the same service as a resident manager, including nighttime call outs. The landlord noted an action to carry out a ballot to gauge support for varying the lease.
53. The residents raised concerns about the role changing in the stage 1 complaint on 21 April 2023. The stage 1 response on 16 May 2023 said the landlord’s position was under review and it would meet with residents to discuss it at the appropriate time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified the approach it was intending to take, and whether a variation of the lease would be sought. 
54. At stage 2 the residents asserted that there had been a period in the past where they only had a non-resident manager which had resulted in higher service charges. They said that a resident manager brought value for money by maintaining a presence on the estate and being able to monitor contractors while working on things such as the trees and drains. They considered the job description to be inappropriate for non-resident manager. They asked the landlord to clarify:

a.     The number of hours a per day a non-resident manager would spend on the estate.

b.     Why this change apparently only applied to their estate and not to other estates the landlord owned or managed.

c.      What the landlord had meant by the comment in the Event Analysis and Review Report that “residents are fully aware of the consequences of compliance”.

55. The landlord did not directly address this in the stage 2 response, which was not appropriate. The response said that the landlord had covered estate management issues in previous communications and the stage 1 response, however, it had not covered the specific questions the residents raised in the stage 2 complaint. Failing to address them came across as dismissive of their concerns. We have addressed this further in the complaint handling section of this report.
56. The resident estate manager withdrew their resignation and remains in their role, as of the date of this report. However, the residents report being unclear as to whether the landlord will replace them with a resident or non-resident estate manager when they do eventually retire.
57. In summary, while the landlord could have been clearer in its communication about the proposal, its actions on the whole were appropriate. It has not made any changes to the resident estate manager role as yet and its actions indicate that it is aware of the proper process. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration. However, we do appreciate the residents’ concerns so have made a recommendation for the landlord to address the outstanding uncertainty.

Complaint handling

58. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will:

a.     Log and acknowledge stage complaints within 1 working day.

b.     Respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 14 calendar days.

59. The stage 1 and stage 2 responses were 11 and 13 calendar days late respectively. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says that landlords must keep residents informed of delays and seek to agree a new deadline. There is no evidence the landlord did this and it did not apologise for the delays in the responses, which was inappropriate.
60. The Code says that landlords must address all points of the complaint in their responses. The landlord failed to address many of the issues the residents raised at stage 2, as mentioned in paragraphs 30, 33, 44, and 55. Many of these were issues raised in sections of the complaint the residents had labelled ‘appendices’. Regardless of how it was labelled, much of the content was directly related to the complaint issues and as such required a response.
61. Failing to do so was not appropriate and led the residents to feel as though the landlord was ignoring their concerns and evading their questions, which caused distress. It also meant they had to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman to illicit a more thorough response.
62. The delayed responses and failure to address all points of the complaint handling amount to maladministration. We have made orders for the landlord to remedy this, including that it pays each resident £50 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by not responding to all points of the stage 2 complaint. This amount is in line with that recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaint handling failures.

Determination

63. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the residents’ concerns about its financial practices and their requests for financial information is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of tree maintenance and drainage works.
65. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the residents prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s decision not to conduct monthly estate inspections satisfactorily. 
66. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s proposal to replace the resident estate manager role with a non-resident manager.
67. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

68. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:

a.     Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.

b.     Pay each resident £250 compensation, broken down as:

1. £200 in relation to the delay completing the tree and drainage works.
2. £50 in relation to complaint handling failures.

69. Reimburse the residents for the tree survey they paid for which resulted in a quote of £12,000, if it has not already done so. The residents should first provide the landlord with proof of the cost and how it was paid, such as an invoice or receipt. The landlord should pay the reimbursement back to the account holder who made the payment.
70. Write to all residents of the estate setting out its plan for completing the tree works within the next 6 months. The timeframe must only exceed 6 months if there is a clear and reasonable rationale for doing so in which case the landlord must clearly set out the plan, with timescales. If a new section 20 consultation is required this must be factored into the plan.
71. Write to the residents to explain its position on its future use of the drainage contractor and what effect it expects this to have on service charges, if any. This is in relation to the residents’ concern that the drainage contractor has offered a 10-year guarantee, that the landlord has decided not to use them for ongoing work, and that this may lead to increased service charges.
72. Confirm in writing that it will pay the difference for any costs that exceed the 2017 estimate for the remaining tree works.
73. Write to the lead resident, who can share with the rest of the group, to confirm the current status of the subsidence insurance claim and works. It should also provide the name and contact details for a member of staff who will be responsible for keeping the residents updated of any progress.
74. Write to the lead resident, who can share with the rest of the group, to confirm when the £12,000 reduction in management fee will be applied to the service charge account. This must be within this financial year.

Recommendations

75. The landlord is recommended to:

a.     Confirm in writing to the residents how it will effectively maintain the estate in the absence of monthly inspections. This should include details of how it will monitor and measure its effectiveness.

b.     Write to the lead resident, who can share with the rest of the group, to confirm its position on whether it intends to make the resident estate manager role a non-resident one. If it does, it should set out the legal process that it will follow in order to make changes to the lease.

c.      Review the appendices in the stage 2 complaint and provide residents with a response to any issues it has not addressed since that time.