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

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202418074)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418074

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

25 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports concerning the standard of grounds maintenance in communal areas.
    2. Reports concerning the condition of fencing in the communal areas.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord, a housing association. Her flat is part of a block of flats on an estate where the landlord provides communal grounds maintenance services, funded through a weekly service charge paid by the resident.
  2. On 15 July 2023 the resident reported concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance in the communal courtyard. She highlighted the presence of overgrown weeds and hedges. The landlord responded by sending a neighbourhood officer to inspect the area. The officer took photographs and contacted the grounds maintenance contractor to request urgent attendance.
  3.  On 30 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had changed its grounds maintenance contractor. It provided assurances that the new contractors would complete the winter programme of grounds maintenance including cutting back bushes, hedges and clearing leaves.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint on 21 May 2024. She stated that the landlord had failed to maintain the communal areas to the agreed standard, despite previous assurances. She reported that the weeds on the patio remained untreated and that the grass cutting was inconsistent. She expressed dissatisfaction with rising service charges and requested reimbursement for services not delivered. She also asked the landlord to replace the fencing in the communal area, which she described as deteriorated and falling apart.
  5. The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2024. It partially upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that the grounds maintenance service had been inconsistent and that the previous contractor had underperformed. It explained that it had appointed a new contractor and introduced a revised maintenance schedule. The landlord offered £25 compensation for the resident’s personal expenditure on weed treatment. It stated that it had not planned any fencing replacement.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 June 2024. She said that the promised maintenance had not occurred and that the communal areas and fence remained in poor condition. She reiterated her concerns about paying for services that the landlord was not delivering.
  7. The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2024. It recognised that the grounds maintenance service had not improved significantly since its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it had completed a site visit and that the area remained untidy. It apologised for the continued poor service and offered an additional £25 compensation. It committed to conducting spot checks and extending the grass cutting season to meet its obligations.
  8. Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident referred her complaint to us. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ground’s maintenance and fencing issues. She stated that she had incurred further personal costs and that the service continued to fall short of the agreed standards. She requested reimbursement of service charges and replacement of the fencing.
  9. After the resident escalated her complaint to us, the landlord reassessed the fencing issue. On 17 February 2025 it issued a redress letter acknowledging that it should have raised a repair order earlier. It offered £250 compensation for the delay and oversight in addressing the fencing concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In bringing her complaint to us, the resident raised several new issues that were not part of her formal complaints to the landlord. These issues related to car park maintenance, parking bays, faulty communal lights, overflowing gutters, ants in the property and proposal to increase grounds maintenance charges. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to respond to any new issues that arise under its complaints procedure before the Ombudsman investigates them.
  2. These new issues have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, so we will not consider them in this report. It is open to the resident to bring a complaint to us about these issues after she has completed the landlord’s complaints process.

Reports concerning the standard of grounds maintenance in communal areas.

  1. Under the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s neighbourhood management policies, the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal areas to a reasonable standard. This includes regular grass cutting, weed control, and hedge maintenance. The landlord’s grounds maintenance contract 2024-2027, requires 20 grass cuts per year, 4 hedge cuts, and 4 weed treatments. These obligations are reinforced by the landlord’s commitment to provide services that reflect the service charges paid by residents.
  2. The landlord recovers costs through a weekly service charge of £2.21, which totals approximately £115 annually for the resident. This charge covers grounds maintenance, cleaning, and communal lighting.
  3. On 21 May 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She stated that the contractors had cut the communal grass only in the middle, weeds remained untreated, and the service did not reflect the weekly charge of £2.21. She requested a refund of service charges.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2024. It partially upheld the complaint, acknowledging inconsistent service and delays. It noted that the new contractor had missed visits due to equipment issues and said daily inspections were underway. It offered £25 compensation for the resident’s personal expenditure on weed treatment but declined to refund the service charge, stating it covered multiple services.
  5. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, it failed to assess whether the gardening service delivered matched the value of the service charge. It did not evaluate whether the resident received a fair return on her contribution or consider a proportional refund for the gardening element. This omission fell short of the Complaint Handling Code, which requires landlords to address all aspects of a complaint, including financial impact. The landlord also failed to provide evidence that the service had improved or that it had delivered the required maintenance.
  6. On 19 June 2024 the resident escalated her complaint, stating that maintenance remained inconsistent and the patio was still overgrown. She said weed control only occurred when she raised concerns and reiterated her request for financial redress, having paid for a service she believed the landlord had not delivered for over a year.
  7. On 18 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It again partially upheld the complaint, confirming that a site visit on 2 July 2024 found the area untidy and overgrown. It apologised for the continued poor service and acknowledged that the new contractor had not yet delivered consistent results. It offered an additional £25 compensation and committed to spot checks, extending the grass cutting season, and weekly contractor performance meetings.
  8. The stage 2 response demonstrated a more thorough review and confirmed the resident’s concerns through a site visit. However, the landlord again failed to adequately address the request for a refund of service charges. It did not quantify missed visits or assess whether it had delivered the contracted level of service. The total compensation of £50 did not reflect the prolonged nature of the failure or the resident’s time and effort in pursuing the complaint.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary payments where there has been a failure to follow procedures, poor complaint handling, unreasonable delays, or financial loss to the resident. The landlord also has a duty under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to provide fair and transparent responses and offer appropriate redress where service failures occur.
  10. The resident’s request for a refund of service charges was reasonable. It is fair to expect that service charges should reflect services delivered. The landlord acknowledged poor service and confirmed that the contractor had not met the agreed schedule. It should have reviewed service records and considered a proportionate refund based on missed visits or substandard delivery.
  11. In summary, the landlord failed to deliver the grounds maintenance service to the required standard over a prolonged period. Its complaint responses did not adequately address the resident’s financial concerns or offer proportionate redress. The resident experienced inconvenience and the landlord’s actions fell short of its contractual and policy obligations.

Reports concerning the condition of fencing in the communal areas.

  1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining fencing in communal areas where it installed the fencing and where it borders public footpaths or open land, as set out in its repairs policy. While full replacements are typically considered only as part of planned investment programmes, the landlord must still assess and respond to reports of disrepair.
  2. The resident first raised concerns about the condition of the communal fencing in her stage 1 complaint on 21 May 2024. She reported that the fencing was falling apart and untreated. Although she had not previously submitted a repair request, she clearly identified the issue in her formal complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated it had no plans to replace fencing across the estate and advised the resident to report any fencing bordering public footpaths to its Homes Team.
  3. The resident reiterated her dissatisfaction in her stage 2 escalation request. She stated that the fencing remained in poor condition and that the landlord had taken no steps to address it. The landlord repeated its position and again advised the resident to report fencing bordering public footpaths. It failed to acknowledge that the fencing surrounded a communal area maintained through service charges and did not assess whether it posed a health and safety risk or contributed to dissatisfaction with the communal environment.
  4. On 12 February 2025 more than 9 months after the initial complaint, the landlord arranged for a joiner to inspect the fencing. The joiner confirmed that 10 panels had damaged capping and one vertical panel required replacement. The landlord scheduled the repairs for 14 April 2025 and issued a redress letter to the resident offering £250 compensation for the delay and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s revised offer of redress was reasonable. It acknowledged that it should have raised a repair order at stage 1 of its complaints process and it accepted that it had failed to provide the resident with the necessary contact details to report the issue. The £250 compensation reflected the delay, inconvenience, and the landlord’s failure to follow its own repairs policy.
  6. At the time of the landlord’s final submission to us, it had scheduled the fencing works and had communicated the scope of the works to the resident and provided a clear timeline for completion. The resident informed us the landlord has completed the fencing works.
  7. landlords are encouraged to proactively resolve complaints at the early stages and within their complaints process. In this case the landlord’s revised actions only came after the resident escalated her complaint to us.
  8. The landlord’s revised decision and the compensation it gave the resident aligned with the Ombudsman’s expectations for putting things right. The landlord identified its failures and completed the repairs. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and learnt from its mistakes. It offered compensation in line with its policy and our remedies guidance proportionate to the likely distress and inconvenience the situation would have caused the resident. Its failing was in not doing this until the resident had come to the Ombudsman.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the standard of grounds maintenance in communal areas.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the condition of fencing in the communal areas.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must: 
    1. Pay the resident £200 in compensation for the failings identified in its handling of the communal ground’s maintenance.
    2. Confirm it has paid the resident the £250 it offered her in February 2025.