Aster Group Limited (202115659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115659

Aster Group Limited

31 August 2023

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 regarding the landlord’s response to concerns raised regarding:
1. Grounds maintenance and the maintenance of communal areas.
2. Electricity charges relating to bollard lights.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has resided at the property, a 2-bed house, since 2003.
Within the evidence submitted to this investigation, it is noted the resident has submitted complaints to the landlord both individually and as part of a group of residents (‘Neighbours A and B’). This investigation will consider issues raised by the resident under two references and address them within one response. However, some of the issues raised regarding ground maintenance and an associated service charge increase (particularly regarding the trees and fencing) have already been addressed by this service within complaint reference 202123084. Although this determination was issued to Neighbour A, the resident was part of the group complaint to which the landlord responded and has made clear in correspondence related to this investigation that she was aware the complaint had been escalated to this service.
This investigation will therefore not re-investigate issues addressed within that complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states this service will not consider complaints which “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman…has already decided upon”.
Within her correspondence, the resident had also complained that calling cards were not being left with Neighbour A. As this issue did not affect the resident, this investigation will not consider those concerns or the landlord’s response. Neighbour A may wish to raise this issue with the landlord directly if they wish for this to be investigated further.
The resident has also raised further concerns regarding the standard of grounds maintenance since the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process. These issues will not be addressed within this investigation as they fall outside the period under consideration. The resident would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord regarding any additional or ongoing concerns regarding the maintenance of her estate by the landlord or contractors acting on its behalf.

Summary of events

On 16 March 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident (under reference 30020). This service has not seen details of the original complaint, but the landlord’s response noted it was “sorry to hear about the problems” raised when it had spoken with her on 12 March 2021. It summarised the resident’s concerns, which largely related to grounds maintenance issues including:
1. That she had not received a site map and a detailed list of works from the Grounds Maintenance team.
2. That the communal areas were not being maintained (concerns were raised regarding fly tipping, broken branches not being collected on site, a build up of moss in a parking space and “a large volume of weeds” which had not been attended to).
3. It noted that the resident requested a response regarding the maintenance issues raised and for a fencing issue to be investigated.
The landlord advised it had considered the resident’s concerns and made comments and findings which included:
1. It attached “the grounds maintenance specification” to its letter, along with a map of the development as requested.
2. It did not currently have any outstanding fly tipping reports open. It acknowledged that the resident or one of her neighbours may have made such a report, but advised it had “not found its way to the Estates Team”. It stated it would ask a member of the Housing Team to visit the site to check for any fly tipping and, if any was identified, it would clarify whether this would be removed “under a recharge or a standard clearance” and instruct any required works “as soon as possible”.
3. It acknowledged that certain hedges on the estate “attracted” fly tipping and littering and noted that works had taken place to remove a hedge for this reason. It thanked the resident for any clearance residents themselves had undertaken, but again advised it had no outstanding reports on its system. It advised that, following a site inspection, a pest controller had been instructed to carry out visits to “treat the rodent issue” that had been reported.
4. It confirmed broken branches should be removed and that on their next visit, operatives would remove ones shown in photographs provided by the resident. It would also consult an arborist regarding one particular tree which it stated was prone to being knocked by delivery vans and rubbish trucks.
5. It would instruct a contractor to address the reported moss and ask its Grounds Maintenance team to clear any debris from pathways during their next visit. It advised that, during winter months, “sometimes treatments used to address…weeds is not effective” and noted that it had received feedback that treatment was not always possible due to the way some cars were parked. It advised it would however ask staff to “attend, inspect and address any weeds on site”, as well as following up with a post inspection.
6. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It noted the site was being maintained and fly tipping was “removed swiftly when reports have been received” but acknowledged its communication “has broken down at some stage” if residents had been caused to carry out their own removal of any fly tipping. It also “conceded” that weeding treatment “has not been as effective in some of the areas as we would hope”. It accepted works needed to be completed again and monitored. Finally, it advised it would increase site visits “to…monitor general works” and “keep a closer eye” on how treatment of weeds and moss was progressing.
On 21 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the “fluctuation” in the cost of lighting from year to year. She provided a table of the annual cost “paid annually between the 7 properties” since 2012. The figures charged varied from -£266.00 in 2016/17 to £217 in 2019/2020 (there was a charge of £0 for 2014/15). Based on her calculations, she queried the annual cost for 2019/20, stating that at approximately £18 a month, it cost the same to light the bollard lights during evening hours as it did to power her whole 2 bedroom house over the same period. She asked the landlord to investigate further and cc’d Neighbours A and B into her email.
The landlord responded to the resident (and Neighbours A and B) on 11 May 2021. It noted her dissatisfaction with “fluctuating costs” but advised that having compared the resident’s figures with the last 2 years’ bills, it had no concerns over the “outstanding concerns in the pricing from the energy provider”. It also noted there had been “numerous repairs” to the light which would have affected its usage and resulting bills. It also advised it carried out an “electrical condition report” every 5 years to ensure the bollards were safe for continued use.
The resident responded on 3 June 2021 to advise that she and Neighbours A and B could still “not see how the lighting costs are considered consistent”. She referred to costs going back over the past 8 years and reiterated that the costs associated with the lighting was “too high for the use that everyone gets out of them”. She requested that the costs be removed from their service charges and asked the landlord to “help us to understand why we get…escalating bills”.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response (under reference 30017). It noted the resident was: “unhappy with the cost of the communal electricity tariff”; wanted the light to be changed and “would like to have the light removed”. It understood the residents’ desired outcomes to include the landlord finding a lower tariff that “doesn’t change” and for the lighting to be changed or turned off. It made the following findings:
1. The cost of electricity was not subject to any uplift, and it “regularly” undertook a procurement exercise regarding the electricity. It confirmed it was under contract until March 2022 and would be “working to procure a new contract”, although it was unable to advise what any future tariff would be as that was market dependent.
2. Changing the light for “a more efficient type” could cost in the region of £500, which would be subject to consultation with all residents. If residents agreed, the cost would be met by them. It advised the bills “may be cheaper” but the “cost per unit” of electricity would remain the same, as would the “seasonal variances” which saw the lights being on for longer in winter.
3. There was no option to remove the light(s) completely due to the “scheme design…(and) need to comply with safe operating practices…and provide customers and visitors with courtesy lighting”. Its insurance may be invalidated were the lights to be turned off.
4. Based on its review of the case, it found no evidence of service failure and it did not uphold the complaint. It advised the resident to get back in touch by 8 July 2021 if she remained unhappy with its response.
The resident responded to the landlord, also on behalf of Neighbours A and B, on 10 July 2021. She requested that the complaint be escalated as they remained dissatisfied.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 30 July 2021. It noted the resident had advised she remained unhappy with its response because:
1. She felt the fluctuation in the electric bills was unacceptable and believed the landlord was not providing correct meter readings to the provider and the landlord was not doing enough to procure a competitive rate.
2. The fluctuation in the bills may mean the lights were not working properly.
3. She had never believed the lighting was sufficient so she should not be charged for any replacement. The current lighting did not provide light all the way to her front door and was therefore not good enough.
4. As she had advised she was unhappy with the lighting, if she ever had an accident, she believed the landlord would be liable.
The landlord made the following comments and findings:
1. Before the onset of COVID-19, it provided meter readings to the supplier twice yearly. It would now submit quarterly readings so the provider could generate more accurate bills.
2. It believed the lights were working correctly so this was “not the reason for the fluctuation in bills”.
3. Its contract with the supplier was “procured across all our communal electricity supplies” and was for a period of 3 years, due to end in March 2022. It clarified that, prior to signing the contract, a section 20 consultation had been carried out with residents, including those who lived on the resident’s street. It would “endeavour to find the most competitive rate” when the contract was up.
4. It cited Section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 when advising that provision of communal lighting was not its responsibility and therefore any replacement of the lighting would be chargeable if any upgrade was carried out at the request of residents.
5. The purpose of the lighting was to illuminate the car park and was not intended to “illuminate all the way to your doors”. It outlined that the bollard light was “both below the driver’s line of sight so as not to cause obstruction…and…does not cause illumination within the properties via light pollution through windows”. It stated the lights had been chosen with regards to the above and a document of regulation. It stated the lights only needed to be “5 lux” and believed they met this requirement, but it would be happy to attend with a Lux meter and “measure this in various places”.
6. It would speak to its “lighting specialist” regarding the provision of lighting all the way to the resident’s front door as it was concerned about potential light pollution. It would contact her when it had received advice.
On 1 September 2021, Neighbour A, apparently on behalf of the resident and Neighbour B, wrote to the landlord to request an update on the earlier complaint (30020), particularly relating to “the ongoing issue of maintenance (or lack of it)”, and noting they needed a final outcome before they could approach this service. While the residents requested that a new complaint be opened, the landlord determined it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 9 October 2021, the resident contacted this service. She outlined that her complaint regarded the increase in her service charges from £2.65 per week to £9.28 per week, which she mainly attributed to a £5 per week charge related to tree works. She stated that she wanted the landlord to “remove the charge for tree works within our service charges”. She did not make any reference to concerns regarding electric charges or lighting.
On 15 October 2021 the landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response to the resident under reference 30020. It summarised her complaint as regarding:
1. Maintenance around the estate was “still not being upkept” and that, since March 2021, there had only been 2 routine visits and 1 “clear up visit”.
2. Only 1 calling card had been left, although as this related to Neighbour A rather than the resident, this issue falls outside the scope of this investigation.
3. There was “no action plan” in place.
4. Rats had returned to the estate and the contracted pest controller had stopped attending.
5. Her service charged “seemed to be escalating” because of works required to resolve previous issues.
The landlord made the following findings (its response regarding calling cards is not included):
1. Regarding the grounds maintenance, it provided dates for all, twice-monthly, attendances since April 2021. It advised it appointed a contractor to take over the maintenance in July 2021 and acknowledged that only one visit had taken place in August, the cost of which it assured her would not “be passed on to you or other residents”. It advised it had reviewed evidence she had sent in and acknowledged these indicated “service standard issues”. It had fed back to the contractor and requested they carry out additional works “at no additional cost to you”. It would carry out a site inspection in October 2021 and in future, if there were any other concerns about the site, it would complete a joint inspection with the contractor in November 2021.
2. It was progressing a plan to remove hedges following advice from “terminators” and was awaiting a quote for the works before it could confirm “details such as start dates”. It advised it had chased the contractor regarding the required quote, but they were “under a high demand”. It apologised for the delay and stressed it wanted to complete works “within the winter period”. Regarding the resident’s concerns over communication, it advised it did not believe any correspondence had been unanswered, considered it had discussed the works “both in person and via email” and that feedback had also been provided via the resident’s former Housing Officer.
3. A treatment plan regarding rats was completed, although it noted that “these actions are often not a cure to the root cause of the issues”. It clarified that multiple visits had taken place but as these had not identified the source of the issue it had instructed the terminator to reattend, although it stressed, they may only be able to “manage the symptoms as opposed to curing the cause”.
4. Regarding the resident’s concerns over “escalating charges”, it clarified that service charges were “subject to an annual inflationary increase in line with the customer price index” and this had led to the resident’s service charges rising by 6p per week. It clarified it undertook contractual reviews “every 5 to 7 years” to ensure customers received value for money regarding services. It had also reviewed the resident’s service charges and noted a one-off adjustment made in 2020-21 relating to a “landscape improvement job…to enhance an identified area…that was subject to fly tipping” and which was not “part of the standard grounds maintenance service”. It outlined the nature of the works and that an additional charge of £1.68 per week had been added to the service charges as an adjustment.
Following further correspondence with this service, on 28 February 2022 the resident confirmed she wished to have her complaint treated as an individual rather than a group complaint. She clarified that her outstanding concerns related to “tree works” and maintenance not being done on hedges on the estate, “bollard light electricity charges” and “the maintenance of communal areas” (being charged for works that contractors were not carrying out).

Assessment and findings

Grounds maintenance and the maintenance of communal areas

Following the resident’s initial complaint (30020), the landlord reasonably advised that, while it acknowledged a resident may have reported fly tipping, it did not have any open fly tipping reports on its system and this investigation has not seen evidence to the contrary. It was appropriate that it advised it would shortly carry out an inspection visit and would deal with any identified fly tipping. It was also appropriate that it attempted to manage expectations by advising this may be rechargeable.
The landlord’s complaint response appropriately clarified that broken branches should be removed and that it would consult with an arborist regarding one particular tree. It was also positive it advised it would get contractors to inspect the reported moss and weeds on site and that it would post-inspect. Its explanation regarding previous weed-killing treatment was also reasonable. While it maintained that the estate was being maintained well, it acted reasonably by acknowledging that some communications had “broken down” and the apology it offered regarding this was proportionate. After issuing its stage 1 complaint response, it also acted reasonably by following up with the resident in April 2021 and providing a plan of action for the Grounds Maintenance team. It was positive that it offered the resident the opportunity to attend a joint site visit on 27 April 2021. This indicated the landlord was willing to work with the resident to resolve any issues and allay her concerns about the site maintenance.
However, following its initial complaint response and follow up email, this investigation has not seen any records regarding whether the landlord did carry out the actions it said it would. Aside from its subsequent stage 2 complaint response, this service has not seen further details of any visits that were carried out, or any instructions issued to contractors regarding issues such as the moss and weeds. This is not appropriate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, means the landlord is not able to evidence that it appropriately followed up on the actions it committed to.
It is noted that the resident (along with Neighbours A and B) had cause to make a further complaint regarding the site maintenance in September 2021 as they considered no further actions had been taken and had seen no sign of improvement. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had appointed a contractor to take over the grounds maintenance in July 2021. It noted the decision was “not taken lightly” but had been necessary to “maintain the standards of service for our residents” due to staffing challenges. While it was appropriate that the landlord took steps to appoint a contractor if it felt it could not fulfil its obligations, it does indicate that there were concerns over the maintenance services during this period and it would have been useful if the landlord had addressed these within the context of the resident’s further complaint in September 2021.
Its stage 2 response did, however, provide reasonable explanations regarding the change in service provision and, addressing the resident’s contention that only 2 routine visits had been carried out, provided a list of dates when the twice-monthly maintenance visits had been carried out. It acknowledged that one visit had been missed but appropriately assured the resident she would not be charged for this. It also acted appropriately when it acknowledged that evidence submitted by the resident (not seen by this investigation) indicated “service standard issues”, that these had been fed back to the contractor and that it would carry out a further site inspection the following month. This was a reasonable response, however the landlord could, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, considered whether an apology or small offer of compensation would have been appropriate for the acknowledged “service standard issues”.
Its complaint response provided reasonable updates regarding the removal of a hedge, appropriately apologising for the delay in receiving a quote from a contractor, and regarding the resident’s concerns over rat activity. It was reasonable for it to stress that pest control services may at time not be able to eliminate the cause of an issue. It noted that it had commissioned one course of treatment and it was reasonable that it committed to a further course.
Regarding the resident’s concerns over “escalating charges”, it provided reasonable explanations regarding annual inflationary costs and why there had been an increase of £1.68 per week following a one off adjustment in the previous financial year. As noted before, this service is not able to determine whether the landlord’s charges were reasonable, but the explanation it provided was fair and sought to directly address the concerns raised.
Overall, the landlord’s responses to the concerns the resident raised were reasonable and it appeared to take some time to appropriately investigate and address the issues raised across the various complaints that had been submitted. However, due to the lack of evidence it completed the actions it set out following its stage 1 response, its failure to address these specific points within its stage 2 response, the overall lack of evidence regarding its overall grounds maintenance during the period in question and its apparent failure to consider further redress for what it admitted were “service standard issues”, the Ombudsman has found evidence of service failure. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation by way of redress.

Electricity charges relating to bollard lights

In response to the resident’s second complaint (30017), the landlord set out its position regarding the electricity costs. As noted above, this service will not consider whether the charges were reasonable as this is a matter for a tribunal.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it is noted the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, the way it addressed the concerns raised was reasonable. While it could have provided more detail regarding how it assessed the apparent variations in costs from year to year, the explanation within its initial reply that repairs had been required over the years and that this would have affected the usage was reasonable. It was also reasonable that it looked at the costs over the past 2 years. This was an appropriate timeframe for it to consider as any complaints regarding historic bills and charges should have been brought to its attention sooner. It was also positive that it identified a potential improvement that could be made via submission of more regular meter readings, which it hoped would lead to more accurate bills being generated.
It appropriately clarified the details of its contract regarding communal electricity supplies and when the current contract was due to end. It was also reasonable to point out that the existing contact had been subject to a section 20 consultation, which residents would have had chance to engage in.
Regarding the nature of the lighting itself, this service has not seen details of any issues the resident raised previously, although it is noted she advised she had “repeatedly” expressed concern that the lighting was not suitable. However, the landlord provided a fair explanation regarding why the type of lighting used had been installed and that it was meant to light the car park, rather than all the way up to residents’ homes. It was also reasonable, by way of appropriately managing expectations, when it advised that any upgrade may be rechargeable.
The Ombudsman has not identified any service failure by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s complaint. It was appropriate that the landlord offered to measure the lighting with a Lux meter, and it was reasonable that it advised it would consult with its “lighting specialist” regarding whether lighting could be provided up to residents’ front doors. However, it is unclear whether it ever carried out a measurement of the lighting and it is not apparent if it did receive further advice from a lighting specialist and, if it did, whether it passed this on to the resident. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to clarify its position regarding both points.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was:
1. Service failure regarding grounds maintenance and the maintenance of communal areas.
2. No maladministration regarding electricity charges relating to bollard lights.

Reasons

There is an overall lack of evidence regarding the landlord’s management of grounds maintenance and a lack of evidence that it fulfilled the steps it set out in its stage 1 response, including contacting an arborist and carrying out further site visits to specifically address concerns over gathering moss and weeds. It should have addressed these specific points within its later complaint response and, having acknowledged and identified issues with its service delivery, should have considered whether it would have been appropriate to make an offer of redress in the circumstances.
The landlord’s correspondence and complaint responses addressed the concerns the resident raised regarding the electricity costs and lighting in communal areas. It carried out a reasonable investigation of her concerns and provided defensible explanations regarding the variation of charges and quality of lighting provided.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £150 to reflect the identified failings regarding its grounds maintenance and maintenance of communal areas.

Recommendations

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, write to the resident to clarify its position following any advice received from its lighting specialist regarding additional lighting to her doorway and whether it will be attending to take lux measurement readings, if it has not done so already.