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

Livv Housing Group (202319307)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319307

Livv Housing Group

28 February 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:
    1. The communal garden maintenance.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy started in January 2014.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 22 May 2023 via telephone regarding the communal gardens not being maintained regularly. The resident said that her garden was due to be cut on 18 May 2023, but this did not happen.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2023. The landlord apologised that the resident had ongoing issues with contractors attending to complete garden works. It explained that this was due to staff sickness and assured the resident that the contractors had reattended as scheduled.
  3. The resident requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 6 July 2023. She said that its contractors had failed to attend on more than one occasion to cut the grass.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 31 July 2023. The landlord confirmed that its contractor should cut the grass 16 times between March and October. It said this works out to be about every 2 weeks to ensure gardens are kept well maintained. The landlord said it had contacted its contractors who said they were running behind schedule due to resource issues. It confirmed that the contractors are now back on track. Further, the landlord inspected the contractors’ work at the resident’s communal gardens. It found the grass was cut and the lawns had been left in a clean and tidy state. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and offered the resident £100 in compensation.
  5. In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident is wanting the landlord to regularly cut the grass and is seeking increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the frequency of the garden maintenance. The Ombudsman is unable to consider this as this relates to contract arrangements. Therefore, this is beyond the scope of our investigation. This investigation will focus on how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about communal garden maintenance.

The landlord’s handling of the communal garden maintenance

  1. The resident’s customer handbook states that residents pay a service charge for the landlord to maintain communal gardens.
  2. The landlord’s estate services policy states it will ensure it maintains communal areas of grass. This includes that grass is regularly cut and edges strimmed throughout the growing season. Also, shrub bed areas are trimmed and cut back as required. As per its policy the gardens are maintained by an external garden contractor on the landlord’s behalf.
  3. The resident initially contacted the landlord in May 2023 and reported that the garden maintenance contractors failed to attend on a number of occasions. As such, the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions about the issue over the course of the complaint.
  4. It is not disputed by either the landlord or the resident that the level of service provided by its garden contractor was below the level expected. This included that the contractors had not attended scheduled appointments and the quality of works was not as expected. For example, the contractors had missed cutting parts of the communal gardens.
  5. Due to this, the landlord was proactive in contacting the contractors to request that it provided records of its visits. This included sending before and after pictures for each attendance. Additionally, it arranged weekly meetings with its new contractor to review the cutting schedule and to ensure that no areas were missed. Further, it increased its spot checks This was customer focused and reasonable as it took action when necessary. Also, this showed the resident that it was taking matters seriously.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses it apologised for the level of service the resident received. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it investigated the resident’s concerns and confirmed that it had contacted its contractor. It explained that the contractor was running behind schedule due to resource issues. Additionally, it had inspected the gardens on 21 July 2023 and found the gardens were cut and lawns left in a clean and tidy state. Following this, due to concerns raised by the resident and the landlord’s own investigation it terminated its contract with the contractors in December 2023.
  7. The Ombudsman has considered the compensation the landlord offered at stage 2 of its complaint process when considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. We recognise that there would have been inconvenience caused to the resident in having to repeatedly make contact with the landlord regarding the communal gardens. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and took action to put things right. This included speaking with the garden contractors and carried out checks to ensure it was delivering an efficient service.
  8. The landlord offered a total of £100 for any inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy to award between £50 and £200 for service failures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total amount of compensation proportionately reflects the impact to the resident and is broadly in line with our guidance. Therefore, this offer amounts to a reasonable offer of redress.

The associated complaint

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. The landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
  3. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 23 May 2023 via telephone. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 11 working days later on 7 June 2023. This was one day outside its complaint policy and the Code.
  4. The resident requested that the landlord progress her complaint to stage 2 on 6 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 17 days later on 31 July 2023. This was in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that there was a one day delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response. This caused a minimal impact on the resident and therefore, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the communal garden maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.