Hightown Housing Association Limited (202228597)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228597

Hightown Housing Association Limited

19 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Grounds and estate maintenance.
   2. The caretaker’s performance.

Background

2. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, since 1999. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat.
3. On 29 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, sharing a maintenance schedule highlighting items forming her complaint. She said the caretaker was behind schedule, he could not complete tasks in the allotted time, and he needed help. She thought a cycle of stress related leave would develop if action was not taken. She set out a range of concerns and said the landlord had instituted some procedures to address performance, but it should plan in case they did not work.
4. In its early-stage response of 8 September 2022 the landlord said:
   1. It was not always possible for the caretaker to adhere to the schedule due to service demands, annual/sick leave, and areas/duties sometimes being re-prioritised. Arranging cover during periods of absence would lead to increased service charges.
   2. It had spoken with the caretaker, who said he did not tell residents he could not fulfil his duties. Staff sickness was monitored, with action taken in line with policies. It was unable to disclose personnel issues or records.
   3. Windows were not cleaned in July and August 2022 due to the caretaker’s sick leave and a redirection of duties. It apologised for the delay and would do this in September 2022. It would not offer a refund as there was a redirection of duties and window cleaning was just one element of the role. Grounds maintenance would be conducted as per the monthly planner.
5. The resident requested a formal complaint response on 23 September 2022. She reiterated her complaint points and said she was paying for services that were not being provided. She said she was entitled to receive these per the frequency statement and the estate standards document. She said the caretaker was unsuitable for the job and should be redeployed elsewhere; additional support should be provided to him without charge to leaseholders.
6. In its stage 1 response of 5 October 2022, the landlord detailed the complaint points and responded to each in turn. In brief, it said:
   1. It had repaired the bin storage door within its policy timeframes. It had not received a new report after completion. Residents could report repairs via a portal and by calling; no resident had done so.
   2. There would be no cost to residents for discarded turf. The caretaker was reminded of his responsibilities.
   3. Some plants had died due to a drought, but the cost would not be refunded. It had arranged cover during the caretaker’s absence to water them at no extra cost to residents.
   4. Entry door faults had been repaired without charge during and after the warranty period.
   5. The caretaker was hired after a recruitment campaign because he met the job and person specifications. Staff disciplinary procedures were a confidential matter and would not be disclosed to residents.
   6. It was partially upholding the complaint as an improvement in the caretaker’s performance was required. It had instated an action plan with increased monitoring. He had also received additional training; both should improve the estate’s appearance.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 26 October 2022. She reiterated her complaint points and asked for the caretaker’s job profile document and a service charge refund for the lack of window cleaning and grounds maintenance. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 November 2022. It largely reiterated its earlier response and added:
   1. It was sorry for the delay in raising the door repair by the caretaker; performance concerns were being handled. It noted her request for shorter repair times, but these were set with consideration of various factors. It could not agree shorter timeframes for routine repairs.
   2. The third-party fence was not within its jurisdiction to repair. It was, however, liaising with the private owner about its replacement.
   3. 101 plants were purchased, 16 of which had died due to a heatwave. This equated to 15.8%; it would refund 15.8% of the cost of the plants to the service charge account.
   4. It had confirmed action taken to manage performance and due to employer/employee confidentiality reasons, could not share any further details. It could not stipulate when the caretaker should check his emails as that was unreasonable; staff had discretion over elements of their work day. It would send the resident a copy of the caretaker role profile.
   5. It could not dock the caretaker’s salary for delays in window cleaning or grounds maintenance, and financial compensation was not payable under its policy.
8. The resident remained unhappy and referred her complaint to us in February 2023. She said she had been asked to pay £100 for a deficit in the service charge account. The windows had not been cleaned in December 2022, and there was a delay in painting car park numbers. She said she still had not received a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy or the caretaker’s job profile. She wanted a refund of service charges as a resolution to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident requested service charge refunds for services not provided and said she had to chase for the promised 15.8% refund. She said a prompt refund could potentially have lowered the service charge due in 2024. As advised to the resident previously, we cannot assess the level or reasonableness of a service charge and/or whether a refund is due; this is for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to consider. Our investigation has instead assessed the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the queries she raised.
10. We are only able to consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its complaints process. Therefore, our investigations broadly consider events up to the landlord’s final complaint response. As the complaints process was exhausted in November 2022, the issue of window cleaning for December 2022 falls outside our period of consideration. We also have not seen evidence that the deficit charge was raised with the landlord as part of this complaint. Our investigation, therefore, has only assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries raised prior to its November 2022 response.
11. We explained to the resident that, in assessing complaints, we consider if there was a direct, material, and/or significant impact on her. The issues she reported affecting other residents (such as faults with an intercom system) where she was not directly or materially affected are not considered further in this report. These matters may be better referred to the FTT as it can consider them from a service charge perspective. The affected residents could also make their own complaint to the landlord, and once it has issued its final response, and if they remain unhappy, they may refer the matter to us.

Grounds and estate maintenance

12. The landlord has accepted some of its poor service levels in its complaint responses. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
13. The homeownership handbook sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance of communal areas, including gardens and window cleaning. Its repair policy categorises repairs and gives associated response times as emergency (24 hours), urgent (3 working days), and routine (20 working days).
14. The bin area door was categorised as a routine repair. The landlord accepted it was possible the caretaker did not immediately log this when it was raised by another resident. However, it said that residents could log repairs directly with it and it had no record of this being done. The evidence shows this to be correct. It further shows that the caretaker’s duties and frequency document states residents should report repairs directly.
15. In responding to the landlord, the resident set out a ‘possible scenario’ for why the repair was not directly reported. She said that even if a repair was carried out, she had seen work being done on the door in August 2022 which suggests there were still issues with it. We must be fair in our assessment and, therefore, must not speculate, and only rely on the evidence available.
16. Our investigation does not assess reports made by other residents (consideration may only be given for the purpose of understanding the wider context). The available evidence does not show that the resident logged a repair for the bin doors or that it remained outstanding after it was marked complete. Therefore, the apology made by the landlord for the identified failing in this instance was sufficient.
17. The landlord has correctly explained that it is not responsible for repairs or replacement of a fence it does not own. It liaised with the owner to request its replacement and that is what we would expect it to do. There was a delay in the car park numbers being painted. However, we have not identified a material impact of this delay on the resident. While the resident remains unhappy that turf was wasted, the landlord has explained there was no financial impact on residents, and it has addressed this with the caretaker. This was an appropriate response.
18. The refund for the plants offered by the landlord was a suitable response, but there was a delay in issuing this. As set out above, the implications on the service charges cannot be considered by us. However, the resident had to chase the landlord several times before the refund was then issued. The landlord has not explained why it did not provide the promised refund promptly.
19. The landlord acknowledged that it did not clean windows in line with the publicised schedule, but declined to offer compensation saying it could not dock the caretaker’s salary. It is not clear why the landlord linked any potential redress to its employee’s salary. Regardless of whether a service failure is directly attributable to an individual employee or not, the landlord bears the responsibility for setting things right. This includes consideration of financial redress where appropriate.
20. The landlord said compensation was not payable under its policy in this instance. It did not provide us or the resident with a copy of its compensation policy, so it is not clear why financial redress was precluded. However, we consider our own remedies guidance, which allows for awards in consideration of service failures, trouble, upset, and inconvenience.
21. The resident has corresponded frequently with the landlord about issues such as weeding, pruning, and other grounds maintenance. The landlord accepted there were delays in adhering to the maintenance schedule, citing leave and a reprioritisation of duties. While it is good that it offered an explanation for the delays and/or lack of action, it had failed to provide the services it was responsible for in line with the advised timescales. It has not offered any redress for the identified delays. It has also failed to provide a copy of its compensation policy as requested. It further failed to implement the resolution offered to the resident in a timely manner.
22. We have identified service failure in the landlord’s actions. It has accepted some of these, apologised, and offered refunds. It has also provided feedback to ensure it does not repeat the mistakes going forward. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
23. However, it has not sent a copy of its compensation policy or offered compensation for the failings identified above. It is, therefore, ordered to pay the resident £150 for the trouble, inconvenience, and upset caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance.

Caretaker’s performance

24. We do not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with individual staff members’ disciplinary proceedings. We cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against staff, or order remedies from individual staff such as personal apologies. We therefore do not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.
25. Instead, we have assessed whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence to make an informed decision based on the evidence it has available.
26. The evidence shows that the landlord properly investigated the resident’s concerns about the caretaker. It then acted on its findings by drawing up and instituting a plan to improve identified performance issues. It increased its level of oversight and active monitoring to ensure there was an improvement. It also worked with the resident, taking on board and implementing her suggestions. The caretaker was enrolled onto training courses to help improve his knowledge and thereby the level of service he provided. These were all appropriate actions.
27. The landlord has told us that, following the above, the caretaker’s performance has improved markedly, and it has not received any further complaints about him. Should the resident have any ongoing concerns about the caretaker’s conduct, she should raise this with the landlord as a new complaint. Once it has issued its response, and if she remains unhappy, she can then refer this to us.
28. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the caretaker’s performance. However, the landlord has not sent the resident the caretaker role profile document as it promised to do. A recommendation, therefore, is made below for it to do so.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about grounds and estate maintenance.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the caretaker’s performance.

Orders and recommendations

Order

30. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £150 compensation for its handling of her grounds and estate maintenance concerns.

Recommendation

31. The landlord is recommended to send the resident a copy of its compensation policy and the resident caretaker’s role profile as previously promised.