Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Abri Group Limited (202318516)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318516

Abri Group Limited

16 May 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns that the service charge was unreasonable.
    2. Requests for information about the service charge.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2014. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The landlord is responsible for maintaining a patch of grass on the estate where the property is located. The resident pays a service charge for grounds maintenance.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2023 to ask what her service charge paid for. The landlord responded on 17 March 2023 and told her the service charged paid for grounds maintenance. It said it had requested a detailed explanation from its Grounds Maintenance Team.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 April 2023. She was unhappy at the landlord’s delay in providing information about the service charge. She did not think she should have to pay around £600 a year to maintain a small patch of grass.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 June 2023. It said during the past year it had brought grounds maintenance in house. As part of that change it identified its previous contractor had overcharged for the maintenance of her estate. That overcharge had been reflected in the resident’s service charge. It awarded her a £50 shopping voucher and a hamper as an apology for the delays in responding to her request for information. It assured her it would calculate a reimbursement of service charges.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 8 June 2023. She said the landlord had still not explained the reason she had paid a service charge.
  6. On 10 July 2023 the landlord credited the resident’s rent account with a reimbursement of £1,644.94 in service charges overcharged since the year 2017/18. It wrote to her to explain that and provided a breakdown of the figure on 13 July 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. It apologised for its delay in responding to both stages. It provided a map showing the area it charged her for. It agreed for a member of staff to visit her to explain what she was charged for. It awarded her £100 compensation for the delay in responding at stage 2.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 26 September 2023. She was unhappy at that she has to pay a service charge for a patch of grass that she says has nothing to do with her home. She does not feel the landlord has explained why she has to pay a service charge. She was also unhappy with the delays in its complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has complained that the service charge is unreasonable. She does not think she should have to pay for maintenance of a patch of grass that is not outside of her home. She is also concerned that the amounts charged were not proportionate to the grounds maintenance required. She also disputed that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the patch of grass.
  3. Paragraph 42 (d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As such the resident’s complaint that the service charge is unreasonable is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. The resident’s concerns about the level and reasonableness of service charge are better suited to a first-tier tribunal. The first-tier tribunal can make determinations on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge. In order to decide liability it also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred.

Assessment and findings

Information about service charges

  1. The Ombudsman’s September 2020 spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds recommended landlords provide a comprehensive narrative explaining the reasons for service charges. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will list services included in the service charge. The landlord’s service charge policy says its Service Charge Team will answer initial queries about the apportionment of service charges. It says queries may need to be escalated if the resident disputes the apportionment method.
  2. When the resident asked for information about the service charge on 13 March 2023 it was appropriate the landlord’s Service Charge Team contacted its Grounds Maintenance Team to establish what the charge contributed to. Although it delayed in providing her the information she had asked for about what area it covered. That resulted in her raising a stage 1 complaint.
  3. The landlord explained the changes to its ground maintenance service in its stage 2 response. It said it had recalculated the charges she had paid since 2017/18 and would write to her separately about that. It was reasonable it acknowledged the delay in providing the resident the information she asked for. The £50 voucher and hamper it awarded was proportionate to the time and trouble she spent chasing its response. However, it was not appropriate that it did not explain why she had to pay the service charge. She raised a stage 2 complaint to repeat her request for that information.
  4. It was appropriate the landlord wrote to the resident in advance of its stage 2 response and provided a breakdown of the service charges it had reimbursed. The landlord’s approach at stage 2 was also reasonable when it provided a map showing the area that the service charge related to. It showed it had taken her concerns seriously when it arranged for a member of staff to visit her to explain what it charged her for.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 25 September 2023 its staff member had visited her. She said he told her he did not understand why she had to pay for the maintenance of the patch of grass. Given the visit had added to the resident’s uncertainty about the service charge it was appropriate the landlord contacted her on 26 September 2023. It was clear when it explained it calculated service charges from the cost of maintaining the common areas of the estate. It told her she was paying a contribution to services provided for her estate.
  6. The landlord missed several opportunities to explain to resident why she was liable to pay a service charge and what it was for. However, its 2 stage complaints procedure worked as it was supposed to when it provided a map of the area and arranged for a visit to provide further explanation. Although the visit added to the resident’s uncertainty it acted quickly to clarify the matter. As the landlord provided the information about the service charge over the course of her complaint there has been no maladministration in its handling of her request for information.

Complaint handling

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, a landlord should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. If the resident requires an escalation, it should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If a landlord cannot meet these timescales, it must inform the resident, explain the delay and set a new deadline. The new deadline should not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint was compliant with the Code.
  2. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 27 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint the next day. It told her it aimed to respond in 10 working days but it may take longer. Under the Code it should have provided its response by 12 May 2023.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response outside of the time allowed by the Code on 2 June 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not contact the resident to agree an extension. While it was positive it awarded a voucher and a hamper for the delay in providing the information about the service charge. It missed an opportunity to apologise for its delay in responding to her complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 8 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged it the next day. It requested an extension on the day it was due to provide its response, 6 July 2023. It said it would respond to her complaint by 21 July 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord provided its response almost 2 months after that date on 13 September 2023. However, it was reasonable that it apologised for the delays at both stages and awarded her £100 compensation for the delay at stage 2. It was also appropriate it apologised for the delay at stage 1 in that response.
  5. After we notified the landlord of the resident’s escalation it looked at its response to her complaint again. It awarded her a further £50 compensation for the delay at stage 1 on 27 June 2024. Although its offer was made well after its internal complaint procedure, it showed it wanted to put things right.
  6. The delays in both stages of the landlord’s complaint handling would usually amount to a determination of service failure. Where the Ombudsman makes a service failure determination, we would normally order a landlord to pay compensation of up to £100. The landlord’s offer of compensation for its stage 2 delay matched that amount. This Service’s remedies guidance is not limited to financial redress. On occasion an apology may be all that is required to put things right. The landlord’s apology for the delay at stage 1 was reasonable given the delay was less than a month. So while it was positive it sought to put right its stage 1 delay when it awarded the resident a further £50 the Ombudsman considered it to have already taken reasonable steps to address that delay. For those reasons in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in its stage 2 response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns the service charge is unreasonable is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the service charge.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not done so already it should pay the resident the £150 compensation awarded in its stage 2 response and June 2024 letter.