Homes Plus Limited (202439731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439731

Homes Plus Limited

22 July 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:
1. Maintenance of an external communal area at the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom flat owned by the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy started in July 2019. The resident moved to a new address with the landlord in March 2025. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities, including poor mobility.
Between 2019 to 2025 the resident expressed dissatisfaction about communal grounds maintenance at the property. The communal garden area is a rectangular soil bed, centred by tarmac paths. Residents use the paths to access washing lines and communal bins. The resident says the landlord incorrectly records the soil patch as hard standing. As such, the resident says renewed grounds maintenance contracts repeatedly failed to tend to the area. The resident said the landlord should have laid paving slabs to resolve the issue.
On 30 September 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He said it had not maintained the communal area and paving. He also said he had difficulties reaching the communal bins for fear of slipping on moss. The resident described falling and injuring himself attempting to clear up after his dog. He said this would not have happened if the landlord had laid paving slabs.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 November 2024. And sent its stage 1 response on 13 December 2024. It said it had inspected the communal areas and identified no grounds maintenance health and safety issues. Nor any outstanding moss concerns on the communal paving. To ensure successful maintenance appointments, the landlord reminded the resident of the need to clean up after his dog. The landlord offered to meet to discuss the resident’s concerns. It also offered £25 compensation for sending its stage 1 response late.
The resident escalated his complaint on 18 December 2024. He considered the communal area overgrown. He also said the landlord had “lied” to him about the work it would do to clear moss from the path.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 December 2024. It sent its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025. The landlord remained satisfied with its actions to act on the resident’s reports. However, the presence of dog mess had prevented it from completing all grounds maintenance appointments. The landlord reminded the resident of his tenancy terms and conditions and it did not uphold his complaint.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He remained dissatisfied with the standard of ground maintenance work and the landlord’s refusal to lay paving slabs. The resident also considered the landlord’s offer of £25 compensation “an insult”, given his injuries following his fall.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says he suffered facial injuries and lost teeth falling in the external communal area. He says the landlord should compensate him as he had slipped on moss.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury. Such matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident has repeated his complaint at least annually between 2019 to 2025. The landlord has responded to each through its internal complaints process.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint on 30 September 2024, through to its final response on 23 January 2025. It is reasonable that our investigation considers events 12 months prior to this complaint. Any reference to other events will be to provide context only.

Maintenance of an external communal area at the resident’s property

The tenancy agreement states the landlord’s responsibilities for the common parts of the property. It will ensure communal areas are in reasonable repair and fit for use.
The landlord’s grounds maintenance details the expectations of its service level agreement. This includes no more than a 15% coverage of moss on hard surfaces.
The tenancy terms and conditions states the resident’s responsibilities in the property’s garden and external areas. This includes not allowing animals to foul it. The tenancy agreement also considers the failure to clear up after a pet an example of antisocial behaviour and a breach of tenancy.
The resident says a former employee of the landlord informed him the property’s deeds identified the soil bed as a slabbed area. As such, the resident considers the landlord’s inaccurate property knowledge to be the reason for recurring maintenance issues. The landlord has no record of this alleged conversation. Nor has the resident provided any evidence to support his position.
For 6 years, the resident has complained and sought for the landlord to lay slabs to replace the soil bed. The landlord has responded to each complaint and explained its position on this matter.
We have identified no evidence in the resident’s tenancy agreement which describes a slabbed communal area. Nor any obligation for the landlord to replace the soil bed with paving slabs. It is therefore reasonable the landlord continued to include the area within its grounds maintenance contract.
The landlord does not dispute identifying an error with its grounds maintenance contract in 2021. It referred to the soil bed as a ‘slabbed area’ and therefore did not maintain it. As such, it says it corrected the contract and refunded the resident the charge it had incorrectly applied.
We have not investigated whether this was reasonable. This is because the time period is outside of the scope of our investigation. Nevertheless, the contract error and associated communication raised the resident’s expectation. This led to his position that the landlord should lay slabs to the soil patch.
In or around 2021, the landlord assessed the property’s communal area. However, it did not consider replacing the soil patch with slabs a financially viable option. The evidence also shows the landlord met with the resident to explain its position.
The landlord had an obligation to complete the agreed grounds maintenance work. It also had a responsibility to appropriately manage its budgets and resources. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate and inform the resident of its decision in order to manage his expectations.
Between 2023 and 2025 the landlord recorded ongoing difficulties fulfilling grounds maintenance due to dog mess at the property. This included the resident’s alleged avoidance to clear up after his dog. The resident considered the soil bed too wet and muddy for him to access due to his limited mobility. He also continued to repeat his desire for the landlord to replace the soil bed with slabs.
The evidence shows the landlord discussed the matter internally. Its position not to change the area remained the same. The landlord discussed this matter with the resident. Due to the recurring issues of dog mess, it issued a tenancy breach warning letter to all residents in October 2024.
The resident does not dispute he had a responsibility to control his pet, and to also ensure he met the terms and conditions of his tenancy. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s decision to send a warning letter a reasonable step to take. This is because the landlord had a responsibility to protect the health and safety of its operatives, other residents, and visitors to the property. It also had to ensure it could fulfil its maintenance contract.
To manage this situation, it is unclear why the landlord did not demonstrate taking tenancy enforcement steps sooner. We are unable to determine whether the resident’s pet was responsible for the fouling. However, the landlord had a responsibility to complete the grounds maintenance for all users of the communal area. This included the resident, regardless of the apparent stalemate between both parties.
The landlord’s records show dates it attended to complete grounds maintenance. However, these records are generic for the entire contract and not specifically for the resident’s property. It is therefore difficult to assess the impact of dog mess on the landlord’s service.
It is unclear whether the landlord maintained an attendance sheet, detailing any reasons it could not complete work. The lack of evidence may have led to the resident’s position the landlord had simply not attended. This demonstrates gaps in the landlord’s communication.
It is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have demonstrated its actions to ensure delivery of its grounds maintenance service. Given the time the issues went on, the landlord should have escalated the matter and demonstrated robust procedures sooner. This may have included monitoring how the resident controlled his pet. Or, given the resident’s reported mobility difficulties, completed an assessment of the suitability of his property. These steps may have helped to inform the landlord regarding additional tenancy enforcement or the need to help move the resident.
We have no evidence the landlord’s actions included the completion of a risk assessment to remove the faeces itself. Had it done so, the landlord may have considered recharging the resident for additional services. And, while escalating any tenancy breach matters, ensured completion of the service for all users of the communal space. It was unreasonable to simply not complete appointments due to the recurring issue. As such, it is reasonable to consider there may have been occasions when the landlord did not achieve its responsibilities and the communal area left unfit for use.
In October 2024 the resident says he fell in the communal garden as he slipped on moss. This matter requires a decision by a court or insurance claim. However, given the resident’s reports of a fall and injury, it is unclear why the landlord did not give the resident its liability insurance details.
In November 2024 the landlord discussed internally the ongoing challenges to complete maintenance at the property. On 22 November 2024 the landlord inspected the resident’s reports of moss. It arranged to clear the paths and work to minimise any risks of trips due to a drain cover. However, the landlord also reminded the resident it would not proceed with future work until he cleaned up after his pet.
Photographic evidence from the landlord’s inspection shows significant ground coverage of moss. We are unable to calculate whether this exceeded the landlord’s maximum 15% coverage target. However, the landlord had responsibility to ensure it addressed this matter for all residents. That said, the landlord has not demonstrated how it monitored any potential health and safety issue in this area during the periods it had been unable to complete work.
Following the landlord’s inspection in November 2024, it arranged to inspect the area every 6 weeks. This was a reasonable step. It would provide the landlord with information to manage the resident’s tenancy obligations and ensured it could deliver its maintenance service. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not start regular monitoring or act on reports from its operatives before 20 November 2024.
On 5 December 2024 the landlord attended the property to complete the proposed work. However, the presence of dog mess prevented it from completing work on the day. The landlord recorded informing the resident it would complete work once he had cleaned up after his dog, which it did.
We note the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s work. He said the landlord told him it would jet wash the tarmac path. But it had used grit salt to kill the moss instead. We have identified no evidence which supports the resident’s allegations the landlord “lied” to him about this matter. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff and use any appropriate method to achieve the required moss clearance results.
During our conversations with the resident in July 2025 he described not allowing his dog to use the communal area. He also described clumps of moss within photographs which he believed the landlord mistook for dog mess. Therefore, he considered the landlord failed to provide the expected grounds maintenance service. The landlord disputes this.
In this case, the extent to which we can rely on some photographic evidence is difficult. This is because it is not possible to determine the location or circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. Furthermore, we can only base our decisions on evidence and a photograph would not necessarily determine whether a clump is moss, soil, or dog faeces.
However, there is evidence the resident confirmed he had left dog mess. This took place during telephone conversations and visits. The landlord recorded these notes between 2023 to 2025. This included the resident’s statement he had slipped and fell on moss attempting to clear up after his pet. It is therefore reasonable to determine the resident’s pet had made use of the communal area which contributed to the landlord’s decision to pause work.
The landlord’s complaint responses also acknowledged the resident’s reported difficulties taking out his rubbish. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to offer to remove the rubbish, which the resident declined. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer this support and the resident’s prerogative to decline it.
While this demonstrated the landlord’s offers to help, it may have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to complete an assessment of the resident’s health and vulnerabilities. This may have assisted in its decision to consider the suitability of his property and communal facilities.
As a vulnerable resident, it is reasonable for him to raise concerns regarding the risk of slips due to moss on a path. It was also reasonable for the landlord to require the resident to clear up after his dog. However, while the landlord has responded to each of the resident’s complaints, it has not demonstrated effective management of the situation. The lack of robust procedures at an early stage led to intermittent work interruptions for an extended period between 2023 to 2025.
In communication with us, the landlord accepted the information it had given to the resident regarding the external area had been “inconsistent.” We consider this an admission of a failure in service delivery.
Therefore, based on our findings we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. The resident’s actions may have contributed to delays to complete work. However, this was not sufficient mitigation for the landlord to allow interruptions to its maintenance service.
The landlord had a responsibility to ensure it completed its grounds maintenance service. However, it did not demonstrate management of the situation from an earlier point in time. The landlord should have taken steps to investigate matters and escalated action sooner to ensure this matter did not persist.
Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to put things right. This sum is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. We are satisfied the landlord’s complaint policy complies with the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement on 20 November 2024, 32 working days late. As such, the landlord’s stage 1 response was also late by a total of 49 working days. This was not consistent with the Code or the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated attending the property to investigate the resident’s reports. This showed the landlord using its complaints process to consider the resident’s concerns and actions it would take, where necessary, to put things right.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also offered to remove the resident’s rubbish, which he declined. Given the resident’s reported difficulties to achieve this task, it was reasonable for the landlord to use its complaints process to offer to help.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. However, it apologised and offered £25 for the identified stage 1 complaint handling delays.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement and response on 23 December 2024 and 23 January 2025, respectively. Both dates were within the landlord’s expected complaint handling response times.
The landlord’s stage 2 response summarised its handling of the resident’s concerns over several years. The landlord also demonstrated sending operatives on 15 January 2025 to treat moss on the communal paths. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord actioned an earlier promise. The landlord provided evidence of its inspections, including photographs of the completed work. It was also satisfied there were no obstructions to prevent the resident accessing the bins. The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated a thorough response.
Based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress. It recognised its failure to provide the resident with a timely complaint response and took steps to offer redress to put the right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s maintenance of an external communal area at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £150 the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s maintenance of an external communal area at the resident’s property.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Reoffers the resident £25 compensation offered at stage 1 of its complaints process, if not already paid.
2. Provides the resident with its liability insurance details.
3. Considers how it records attendance and how it reports identified issues when undertaking grounds maintenance appointments.