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

Amplius Living (202318404)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318404

Longhurst Group Limited

27 February 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for information about the grounds maintenance contract.
    2. Request for information about a service charge increase.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom bungalow in a housing scheme for older people. She serves as the secretary of the residents’ association for her housing scheme.
  2. On 23 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on behalf of the residents’ association, to highlight that the grounds maintenance contract for the area was due to expire the following month. She pointed out that the landlord would need to consult leaseholders if it planned to enter a new contract and asked for an update on the situation.
  3. On 2 March 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the existing grounds maintenance contract would be extended for 1 year. In response, the resident asked why the landlord was not entering into a 5-year contract as it had done previously. She also asked that the landlord send a letter to all residents in the scheme to inform them of the decision.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 April 2022, as she had not received a response to her previous query and request. On 17 April 2022, she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, because it had not responded to her complaint within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
  5. On 25 April 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s enquiries. It explained that the grounds maintenance contract had been extended for a year due to an upcoming procurement process. The landlord also outlined its service standard, stating that enquiries should be responded to within 2 working days and if this did not happen, it would chase the relevant team. If a second request for the same enquiry was not responded to, it would escalate the matter to an informal complaint. The landlord advised the resident that an informal complaint had been logged.
  6. On 27 April 2022, the resident advised the landlord that her initial enquiry had not been fully answered. She repeated her request for the landlord to send a letter to all residents about the situation and stressed that leaseholders should have been consulted on how their money was being spent.
  7. In May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would not be sending out letters because the existing contract was being extended for another year, meaning there was no change. It advised that leaseholders would be notified of the next steps once the procurement process began. The resident challenged this arguing that moving from a 5-year contract to a 1-year extension was a change. She also informed the landlord that the leaseholders in the scheme wanted to renew the contract for 5 years.
  8. In July 2022, the resident told the landlord that it was not her responsibility to keep residents informed about its decisions. The landlord agreed and confirmed that its estate management team would send a letter to all residents explaining its decision to extend the grounds maintenance contract for another year.
  9. On 9 January 2023, the landlord raised a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf, as she had been repeatedly following up for confirmation on when the letters would be sent. On 14 February 2023, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, as it was still unable to provide an update on when the estate management team would send the letters.
  10. On 22 February 2023, the estate management team sent the letters to residents. The letters summarised the information the landlord had previously provided to the resident and explained the reason for an increase in grounds maintenance service charges. The following day, the resident asked the landlord why the letters provided a reason for a service charge increase without informing residents of the actual amount. She also raised concerns that the letters had not been reasonably adjusted for older residents, as its explanations were confusing and difficult to understand.
  11. On 13 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It outlined the chain of events since her initial enquiry in 2022, and acknowledged its service failures in communication, as well as the delay in sending letters to residents. On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, reiterating that leaseholders had no knowledge of a service charge increase, and that the information provided in the letters was confusing.
  12. In April 2023, the landlord’s estate management team met with residents of the scheme to answer questions and clarify the information provided in the letters. During the visit, the team agreed to send an additional letter to residents outlining the service charge increase for grounds maintenance.
  13. On 6 June 2023, the landlord emailed its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that the original letter about the grounds maintenance contract could have been clearer but referred to the estate management team’s visit as an effort to address concerns. It attached a letter detailing the service charge increase. The landlord confirmed that the same letter would be sent to all other residents that day.
  14. On 22 August 2023, the resident told us that the other residents in the scheme had still not received the letter about the service charge increase. She noted that, given the amount of time that had passed since she first raised the issue, there would be little point in the landlord sending the letters now but expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with its communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns with the landlord on behalf of other residents in her housing scheme. However, under paragraph 42 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we do not consider matters raised by a complainant of behalf of others without their authority. As we have not received consent from the other residents, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s own requests for information, its communication with her, and its response to her complaint. If other residents within the estate wish to complain to the landlord, then they are entitled to do so separately.
  2. If the resident wishes to bring a group complaint to us, she should obtain written authority from all other complainants, confirming that they have nominated her to represent their concerns. We can only conduct 1 investigation on behalf of a group where the complaint affects all complainants equally. For clarity, ‘equally’ in this case means all complainants must have the same tenure type and pay the same service charges. This ensures that any redress awarded is fair and that residents who may have been more affected than others do not miss out on additional compensation they might be entitled to if they complained individually.

Legal policy and framework

  1. Section 20 (S20) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to consult leaseholders before entering into a long-term agreement for services exceeding 12 months, where costs to any leaseholder exceed a prescribed amount.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord.
  3. At the time of the resident’s complaint in 2022, the policy stated that complaints that could be resolved immediately or within 2 working days would be treated as informal complaints. The policy also set out a 2-stage formal complaints process:
    1. Stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days
    2. Stage 2 complaint would also be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
    3. If an extension was required at either stage, it would not exceed an additional 10 working days and should be agreed upon with the resident.
  4. In 2023, the landlord revised its complaints policy, stating that at the informal stage, if a customer requested for their complaint to be considered as a formal complaint, the landlord would do so. Additionally, the timeframe for acknowledging stage 1 complaints was extended to 5 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if there has been a failure in its service, it will consider awarding compensation. Consideration may be awarded for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble, with payments up to £600, depending on the significance of the failure and its impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the grounds maintenance contract

  1. The resident first asked the landlord for an update on the renewal of the grounds maintenance contract on 23 February 2022. Its records show that it acknowledged the resident’s enquiry on the same day and told her that it would provide an update within 2 working days. The landlord addressed the resident’s enquiry on 2 March 2022, which was 6 working days later. Although the response came 4 days later than the landlord committed to, this was a relatively short delay. As the landlord ultimately provided the requested update, its response at this stage was reasonable.
  2. On 3 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord why it was renewing the grounds maintenance contract for only a year and requested that it send a letter to all residents with an update on the contract. The evidence shows that the landlord provided an explanation on 25 April 2022, 37 working days later. During this period, the resident followed up on 3 separate occasions, each time being assured that she would receive a response within 2 working days. These commitments were not met, and the resident was left without a clear update for several weeks. This delay, coupled with the landlord’s repeated unfulfilled assurances, likely caused unnecessary frustration for the resident. It also fell short of the landlord’s service standards, which stated that it should respond to enquiries within 2 working days.
  3. Following the landlord’s explanation, the resident highlighted that her enquiry had not been fully addressed as she had not received a response to her request for letters to be sent to all residents. The evidence shows that it took the landlord until 9 May 2022, 46 working days, to inform the resident that it would not be sending out letters. This was a significant delay in providing a clear response to a straightforward request and was not in line with reasonable service expectations. Given that the resident had to follow up multiple times for an answer, the landlord should have communicated its decision more promptly to manage expectations and prevent unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord explained to the resident that it did not need to consult leaseholders about moving from a 5-year contract to a 1-year extension. In accordance with S20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord’s explanation was correct. Since it was extending an existing contract for only 1 year, this did not meet the definition of a long-term agreement, and formal consultation was not required. However, while a consultation may not have been necessary, the landlord should have communicated its decision more effectively to ensure leaseholders were properly informed.
  5. Given that the 5-year contract was ending, it would have been reasonable to expect that leaseholders would want clarity on the future of the grounds maintenance service. This could have been done through a general letter, as the resident suggested, ensuring that all leaseholders understood the decision and the reasoning behind it. The failure to proactively provide this information represents a service failure in the landlord’s communication. A recommendation has been included below to address this issue.
  6. The resident highlighted to the landlord that it was not her responsibility to keep other residents informed of its decisions. As a result, in July 2022, the landlord agreed to send information about the grounds maintenance contract to all residents. However, the evidence shows that despite the resident following up with the landlord on 2 separate occasions, 43 working days passed before the landlord provided an update, only to repeat its previous assurance that it would send the letters. This continued delay, combined with the lack of action, placed an unnecessary burden on the resident who had to repeatedly chase the landlord for progress.
  7. Furthermore, despite the resident persistently following up thereafter, the evidence shows that it took the landlord until 16 February 2023, to send out the letters as agreed. This means the resident waited 7 months for the landlord to fulfil a commitment it had made. By failing to deliver on its commitment in a timely manner, the landlord likely made the resident feel disregarded and frustrated, weakening trust in its ability to follow through on its assurances and effectively communicate with residents.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s poor communication and delays to fulfil commitments it made to the resident, has led us to determine service failure in its response to the resident’s request for information about the grounds maintenance contract.
  9. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our approach when resolving a dispute. Where we have made a determination of service failure, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £50 to £100 in cases where we identify a single or limited number of minor failings in the landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this section of the report.
  10. We recommend that the landlord review and improve its communication process to ensure residents receive timely and accurate information about service contracts and related matters. This can be achieved through general notification letters or scheme-wide updates.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about a service charge increase

  1. On 23 February 2023, the resident questioned why the letter sent by the estate management team explained the reason for a service charge increase without stating the exact amount. The landlord’s records show on 16 March 2023, it informed the resident that all service charge costs had already been sent to leaseholders individually in previous months. It also explained that the estate management team would not typically provide details specific to lease agreements, as this information would come from the lease team. The landlord’s response was reasonable because lease agreements and service charge amounts are specific to individual leaseholders and contain confidential information, making it inappropriate for the estate management team to share these details scheme-wide.
  2. However, the landlord’s communication during this period could have been improved, as the resident had to follow-up twice before receiving a response. While it is not always possible for a landlord to provide immediate responses due to the volume of residents it serves, it should set realistic timeframes when acknowledging reports. Additionally, it should have processes in place to proactively update residents if delays occur. This would demonstrate good customer service, improve transparency, and reduce the need for residents to chase for updates.
  3. The resident told the landlord that the letter from the estate management team was unclear and not appropriately adjusted for older residents. While landlords are not legally required to tailor all communications for older people, they must make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, for residents with disabilities, including providing information in accessible formats if requested. As the resident’s housing scheme is for older residents, the landlord should have ensured its communication was clear and easy to understand.
  4. Its records show that, on 16 March 2023, it clarified some points from the letter in an email to the resident, and on 11 April 2023, its estate management team, met with residents to address concerns. We have seen no evidence to suggest the resident requested specific adjustments beyond seeking greater clarity. Therefore, the landlord’s actions here were appropriate, as it took reasonable steps to clarify the information provided. While we acknowledge the resident’s concerns about how other residents may have been affected, this report only considers her individual experience, as outlined above in the scope of this investigation.
  5. On 28 April 2023, the landlord agreed to send a further letter to all residents to provide greater clarity on the service charge increase for grounds maintenance. While the evidence shows that it emailed this letter to the resident on 6 June 2023, it did not send it to other residents as agreed. As a result, the resident followed up with the landlord 6 times over the next 2 months, each time being told that the matter was being chased. Eventually, she approached our service for assistance. While it was positive that the landlord provided the letter to the resident directly, it allowed her to continue pursuing the issue on behalf of other residents, causing unnecessary time and trouble.
  6. It was not until 9 October 2023, that the landlord told the resident that any other resident seeking greater clarity on the service charge increase, would need to contact the landlord directly. This was inappropriate. If the landlord considered the matter closed once it had sent the letter to the resident, it should have informed her of this much sooner.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s failure to provide timely communication has led us to determine service failure in its response to the resident’s request for information about a service charge increase.
  8. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the failings identified in this section of the report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 7 April 2022, after waiting a month for a response to her enquiry. The landlord did not meet the timescales set out in its complaints policy, leading the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2. Instead of treating the issue as a formal complaint, the landlord logged it as an informal complaint, stating that it would only escalate the matter if further follow-ups were required. However, given the 7-week delay to get a response to her enquiry and repeated follow-ups, the resident’s complaint met the criteria for formal escalation under its complaints policy, and the landlord should have done this sooner. This failure to act promptly, undermined the complaints process as a mechanism for resolving concerns in a timely and structured way.
  2. That’s said, we acknowledge that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy so that informal complaints can be progressed to a formal complaint at any time if the resident requests. This is a positive change, as it ensures that complaints are escalated appropriately.
  3. On 9 January 2023, after continued follow-ups from the resident, the landlord logged a formal complaint on her behalf. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 March 2023, 46 working days later, far exceeding the timescale set out in its complaints policy. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 March 2023, and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response 58 working days later, on 6 June 2023. This delay was also excessive, and in the absence of any mitigating factors, there was no justification for such extended timeframes.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), available on our website, states that landlords should manage complaints separately from service requests and not delay complaint responses due to ongoing service issues. A complaint should be logged at the point of dissatisfaction, regardless of whether the service issue is ongoing, and the landlord should provide a response within the required timeframe. By failing to handle the resident’s concerns in line with the Code, the landlord prolonged the complaints process unnecessarily, likely adding to the resident’s overall dissatisfaction.
  5. Still, both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response appropriately acknowledged its poor communication and delays. This demonstrated a recognition of its service failures and a willingness to take accountability.
  6. Considering the significant delays, failure to follow its complaints policy, and improper escalation of the complaint, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint. Furthermore, the landlord did not offer any redress for its failings when it should have provided an appropriate remedy to address their impact.
  7. Based on our Remedies Guidance where there has been a determination of maladministration and the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident, a financial remedy of £100 to £600, should be offered to put things right. In view of this, the landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for information about the grounds maintenance contract.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for information about a service charge increase.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident the following compensation:
    1. £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her request for information about the grounds maintenance contract
    2. £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her request for information about a service charge increase
    3. £100 in recognition of the delay in responding to her formal complaint.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review and improve its communication process to ensure residents receive timely and accurate information about service contracts and related matters. This can be achieved through general notification letters of scheme-wide updates.