Legal and General Affordable Homes Limited (202325704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325704

Legal and General Affordable Homes

13 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to gym access.

Background

The resident was an applicant for a landlord property which was a 1-bedroom flat in a block. The block was on a new development made up of a number of blocks of private and affordable homes. The resident was aware there was a gym on the development adjacent to his block. The landlord offers a range of social, affordable, and shared ownership homes. The resident signed his tenancy in December 2023. The property was managed by another landlord, which is another social housing provider.
The resident contacted the managing agent landlord on 24 August 2023. He said:
1. He was disheartened to learn that the gym facilities were only accessible to shared ownership residents.
2. This policy “discriminated against [social/affordable housing residents on the development] who were unable to participate in shared-ownership due to income limitations.”
After the managing agent responded, the resident complained directly with the landlord on 4 October 2023. He said:
1. His complaint had been “bounced around” the managing agent.
2. The crux of the complaint is that the gym facilities are exclusively for shared ownership residents.
3. Residents should be given the option to include or exclude gym access from their service charge.
4. Access to health and fitness facilities should not be determined by financial status.
5. Gym access was a significant factor in his decision to choose the property.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 October 2023 where it partially upheld the complaint. It said:
1. Gym access must be “given to everyone in a block, or no one in a block.”
2. The “gym membership fee [for shared owners] is recovered through the service charge.”
3. If gym fees were added to the service charge, it would be a considerable cost.
4. “Some [social/affordable housing] residents [on the development] may not be able to afford, or may not wish to use, the gym facilities.”
5. It had negotiated an offer for its residents to use a local gym at a discounted rate. And planned to inform residents of this when they moved in.
6. It apologised for its managing agent’s handling of the complaint.
7. It offered £30 to acknowledge the time and trouble it had taken to raise the complaint.
The resident escalated the complaint on 17 October 2023 and said:
1. He understood the reference to the complexities around the service charge and its impact on universal credit for social/affordable homes residents.
2. The proposed local gym was a considerable distance from the site.
3. The alternative gym did not have the same facilities as the gym on the development.
4. Social/affordable homes residents and shared ownership residents should be treated equally.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023 where it did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. The usage fee for the gym is recovered via the service charge.
2. This aspect of the service charge is not eligible for benefit, therefore making the service charge element of the rent high for housing association residents.
3. It had agreed a discounted rate with another local gym for its residents.
4. It had contacted the developer who said:
  1. “With 4,000 residents across the site, the only way the gym facility can be provided is via the service charge [of shared ownership residents].”
  2. Therefore, it would “have to be put in the service charge of all properties [on the development] with no option to opt in or out.”
  3. The decision to not include the gym membership was made solely based on financial viability and not tenure.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident contacted us on 26 October 2023. He said the crux of the complaint was around equality and fair access to the same provisions. He said it was discriminatory that social/affordable home residents were denied access to on-site gym facilities shared owners were able to use.
On 3 June 2025 the landlord confirmed it did not own the gym, and the gym was owned by the developer. The landlord owns properties within some of the blocks. But the developer maintained the freehold.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is outside our remit to establish whether the landlord have discriminated against the resident. Discrimination matters are legal issues which are better suited to court to decide. However, we will assess whether the landlord’s correspondence was appropriate, fair and reasonable.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to gym access.

The website of the gym the resident referred to says “membership is only available to private residential occupants living on the development.” It should be noted the resident’s complaint was raised during his application for the property.
No evidence has been provided to confirm exactly what was said or when, but following the resident’s query, the landlord’s managing agent explained the gym facilities were only accessible to shared ownership residents of the development, which, from the evidence considered in this investigation, was correct.
After the resident complained to the landlord directly, the landlord was prompt in its response and confirmed the position regarding gym access. It used its complaints process to inform the resident it had arranged discounted access to another local gym for its residents. We accept that the alternative gym did not have a swimming pool and may not have been as convenient for the resident. However, the decision to seek and obtain discounted access to another gym for its residents was reasonable.
The landlord was also prompt in its response following the escalation. It re-iterated its position and explained the rental offer did not include gym access, which shared owners pay separately for through a service charge.
The resident was aware he would not have access to the on-site gym in October 2023. However, he still signed his tenancy agreement in December 2023. The tenancy agreement does not mention any right to access to the gym. The landlord has since confirmed to us it does not own the gym. It would therefore not be able to allow the resident access even if there were failings identified in this investigation.
Overall, the landlord was prompt and clear in its communication. It listened to the resident’s concerns to try and resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. The compensation offer was in line with what we would expect. And arranging discounted access to another gym was a reasonable approach to take. There was no evidence to suggest the resident was treated unfavourably, or that he was significantly impacted by the issues raised. There was, therefore, no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to gym access.

Recommendation

The landlord should ensure it regularly engages with its managing agent to monitor resident complaints.