Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202319491)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319491

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

18 December 2024

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 was about the landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about grass and debris blowing onto the resident’s property following grass cutting.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied his home under an assured tenancy which began in 2009. He paid service charges for certain services provided by the landlord including ground maintenance.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s caretaker policy stated that it provided a weekly caretaker service. Its duties included cleaning external areas, sweeping and picking up litter.
The landlord’s 2022 complaints policy stated as follows:
1. A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.
2. The landlord had a two stage complaints process.
3. It logged and acknowledged complaints within five working days of receipt and aimed “to reach a resolution”, “agreed” with the customer at stage one of the process within ten working days. It aimed to resolve all second stage complaints (known as Appeals) within twenty working days.
4. A second version of the landlord’s complaints policy stated that it aimed to provide a “full Stage 1 response”, within ten working days of the complaint being acknowledged. This was the policy quoted during the complaints process. A second version stated that it would acknowledge, define, and log the request within 5 working days of the escalation required being received and aimed to provide a full response to Stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.

Scope of this report

The resident stated his complaint was about the period from 2012-2023. The evidence showed that there had been a lengthy history to this complaint with the resident making reports about the same issue since at least 2013. There was evidence that the resident raised complaints prior to his complaint of April 2023, most recently in September 2020. It was not clear how the landlord had addressed his previous complaints but the landlord had responded to his September 2020 complaint, albeit informally.
This report will therefore focus on the period since that complaint, approximately the 18-month period prior to the resident’s complaint of 14 April 2023. The Ombudsman considers that this is a reasonable period of time to consider. There was no evidence of reports between the Summer of 2019 and September 2020 in any event. The evidence shows that the resident’s reports about the grass cutting were broadly very similar throughout. It would be disproportionate for the Ombudsman to investigate the period over a number of years in addition, memories and records become less reliable over time. However, the Ombudsman has noted the longer history and background and will take this into account in their findings.

Chronology

Following his complaint of September 2020, in November 2020, the resident expressed that he was happy with the grass cutting service that had just occurred and noted that a manager of the landlord filmed the works. There were no further reports until 24 February 2023 when the resident reported that, following a service cut, his windows were covered in mud. He provided photographs which appears to show mud-spattered windows. He said he had asked the caretaker to clean the windows, but he did not do so. While the resident was unhappy with the result, the landlord had cleaned the windows by 1 March 2023.
On 14 April 2023, the resident raised a complaint including a report of a “dirty area left after grass cutting” as follows:
1. He had repeatedly requested acknowledgement of his complaint.
2. He attached photos of “the dirty entrance and door”.
3. He had made numerous complaints about the issue since 2009, but nothing had changed. The contractors continued to leave the area dirty, blowing grass towards the building and cars instead of properly cleaning up after themselves.
4. He expected the landlord to “fulfil its contractual obligation to leave the work area clean after providing services”. He was left with a dirty area over the weekend.
5. He asked for the landlord to clean the door and pay £50 for its service failure.
6. He referred to a previous complaint the landlord had logged which was unresolved.
The resident made calls to check the email had been received. The landlord confirmed it had been. He sent a similar email on 19 April 2023.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and stated it would reply within 10 working days which the landlord calculated to be 9 May 2023.
On 24 April 2023, the resident wrote with his “proposals” to resolve his complaint as follows:
1. The complaint was about the period between 2012 and 2023 regarding allowing grass to be blown onto his property and car and an instance of a “recorded intimidation” by contractors.
2. He stated that the landlord had breached statutory requirements including the Health and Safety Act 1974, to leave a site in a safe and tidy condition, keep workplaces clean and orderly, and prevent accumulations of waste and debris.
3. There had been “intrusion into (his) private life and space”.
4. There was disparity between the landlord’s published documents and situation.
5. He sets out a chronology including unsuccessful calls to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint but had not responded.
6. He suspected he was being blacklisted as he had not been put through to a manager.
7. The debris put him at risk especially due to the pandemic.
8. He had made numerous calls and sent emails. He required compensation amounting to £53,856 (£583 per complaint between 2012 and 2023). Alternatively, he wanted permission to breach the terms of his tenancy agreement “indefinitely” or for the landlord to transfer the ownership of the property to him.
9. He attached photographs showing grass cuttings on his door and leaves in the path. The door had not been cleaned since 14 April 2023. He also attached the landlord’s survey stating it wanted to deliver a “brilliant” service.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 April 2023.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord replied as follows:
1. The complaint was that following a caretaker visit, the communal area was left dirty, and that grass had been blown towards the building and cars. On the 28 April, the caretaker cleaned his door poorly, leaving it marked. He wanted the landlord to take responsibility for cleaning his door.
2. The estate services manager had arranged for the senior caretaker to attend the block and perform an inspection on the 4 May 2023. Whilst there, he “fully” cleaned the resident’s front door and all the other doors as a one-time “courtesy”.
3. It would ask its grounds contractor to take care when cutting the grass, however it was important to note that there would always be an amount of residue following a cutting which was unavoidable.
4. The landlord’s grounds manager would be on site to oversee the next cut and ensure the contractor “continued to work appropriately”.
5. It had instructed a new contractor to undertake this work.
6. The service offered at this site, and indeed all of its general needs blocks, was a “cut-and-leave”. This meant that when the grass was cut it was not picked up but left as was. Any “significant” grass residue on pathways/roads etc. would be blown back on to the grass.
7. Weather could also greatly impact how the grass falls when cut and affect the texture of the soil.
8. Whilst a cut-and-collect service could be considered, a consultation would first need to take place with all residents present, and grounds charges would be subject to an increase should this be actioned.
9. The estate consistently passed monthly cleaning monitoring inspections and had done so for a long time. No other issues with the grounds had been reported.
10. It had not concluded there had been any service failure. It would not be making an offer, as the resolutions suggested were “unreasonable and disproportionate”, even if a service failure had been identified.
11. It was satisfied that all issues he had reported had been logged and forwarded to the appropriate teams at all times for actioning where appropriate.
On 20 July 2023, the resident reported further grass cuttings at his door. On 22 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged this email as an escalation of his complaint but did not log it until 22 August 2023.
The landlord wrote on 14 September with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It apologised for its delay in acknowledging his complaint at Stage 2 of its process.
2. It was not realistic to ensure there was no grass residue after a grass cut and therefore this would not be considered as a service failure.
3. Photographs from its grounds contractor did not evidence any grass in or around the paths.
4. It was out of its control if any residents walking, or weather conditions, caused the cuttings to spread across the estate.
5. As it was very important to him, it would arrange for the grass cutting to be inspected following the next cut due in the next 10 working days, weather permitting. It would arrange for a manager to be present while this took place.
6. It was not deliberate. It took “every care” when carrying out its grounds maintenance service.
7. The letter concluded with the following: “If you’re unhappy with our response, please let us know within six months, explaining why and what we could do differently to resolve your complaint. “
The resident made a fresh complaint on 17 May 2024. This complaint has not been referred to this Service for investigation. However, this investigation has noted events post the conclusion of the 2023 complaint as the issues are the similar if not the same.

Assessment and findings

The evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of grass cuttings and “debris” landing on his door by the landlord instructing its caretaker to sweep the area, cleaning the resident’s door, arranging inspections and escalating the issue to management and to the head of service as well as speaking to the contractors.
For context, we have noted the landlord’s actions in 2020. Following the resident’s reports of 20 September 2020, the landlord arranged for its caretaker to attend and sweep up. On 30 September 2020, the landlord also arranged for a “senior presence” the next time its grounds team was on site. It stated that “it is clearly an issue for (the resident). It wanted “to witness anything which falls-short of the grounds service we provide, and to ensure we respond appropriately to it”. It also stated it would ask the contractors not to “blow” the grass cuttings toward the resident’s property.
On 9 October 2020, the landlord’s complaints team wrote stating its estate manager or a senior member of staff would be in attendance during the next cut to ensure its contractors were doing what they were “supposed to as per the grounds maintenance contract”. It would update the resident. On 11 November 2020, it supervised and filmed the grass cutting after which the resident expressed he was satisfied and hoped standard of service would continue.
There was no evidence of any reports by the resident in relation to the grass cutting in 2022. The resident’s next made a report of 24 February 2023 of mud being spattered onto his windows. It was reasonable that, in response, on 1 March 2023, the landlord arranged to have the resident’s windows cleaned. The resident reported that the cleaner “directed the blower deliberately so that the dirt went inside the house” which the resident felt was deliberate. This was disputed by the landlord. There was no evidence that it was deliberate or the cause of the dirt in the house was the fault of the caretaker and the Ombudsman is unable to draw any definitive conclusions in that regard.
Following a further report in the resident’s complaint of 14 April 2023, the landlord arranged for an operative to ensure the area was clear of mud and grass. On 27 April 2023, the landlord arranged to inspect the estate and to sweep the area in front of the doors. While the resident was unhappy with the outcome, reporting the cleaning had left brush marks, on 1 May 2023, the caretaker cleaned the doors, which was reasonable. According to the Stage 1 complaint response, the landlord also cleaned the doors again on or around 4 May 2023
The inspection of 5 May 2023 recorded that front doors had been cleaned and were clear. The landlord noted that caretakers did not, as part of their duties, clean paved area outside the flats. The grass was cut and the path looked clear. There was no concerns or issues. While this was a snapshot, this showed that the landlord had responded to the resident’s reports and that the area was left clear and clean.
It was also reasonable that, in its Stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that its ground manager would attend the grass cutting.
While after the conclusion of the complaints process of 2023, and therefore outside this investigation, it is noted that the resident has made a fresh complaint. We note that, on 22 May 2024, the landlord recorded that it had removed/cleaned any grass that was visible. It stated that for future visits it would ensure the landlord was present to minimise any grass spray.
On 27 May 2024, the caretaker reported that he had cleared up the partial grass and leaves off the front communal entrance and “thoroughly cleaned and cleaned the glass (doors and windows) from front to the back access”.
We are satisfied that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident when he reported grass cuttings and debris falling across his property by taking steps following the reports to clear the area and to supervise the contractors.
The resident wanted the landlord to arrange to clear his door of grass cuttings the same day or very soon after it occurred. In response, the landlord stated that it would take a few days to arrange for the caretaker to attend. On 30 September 2020, the landlord internally stated there was no caretaking service but that it would arrange for a caretaker to attend in any event. It is noted that the landlord provides a weekly, not daily, caretaking service. In the circumstances, it was understandable that the landlord was unable to arrange a sweep on the same day. While frustrating for the resident, there was no evidence that this was an emergency.
The landlord’s explanation that some debris and grass cuttings spreading was unavoidable was reasonable. It also explained that this was weather dependant. The landlord had made it clear on a number of occasions, since at least 2019, that the grass cutting service was “cut and leave” and that a cut and collect service would be more expensive and would require a consultation with all residents. That was reasonable.
It is noted that the estate and ground inspections were satisfactory. However, it was not disputed that grass cuttings and debris landed at the resident’s door at least occasionally. The resident also provided to the landlord photographic evidence of the grass cuttings and debris. While it is not unreasonable to expect residents to clear their path of accidental debris, this caused him some inconvenience. However, the landlord did not dispute this and addressed the issue by monitoring the performance of the contractors.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the issue had been ongoing for a considerable amount of time. This which would have been frustrating for the resident. The Ombudsman understands that the resident did not report each time grass cuttings landed on his property. However, we can only expect the landlord to take action when it is reported.
The resident referred to various legislation concerning health and safety. There was no evidence of physical risk or harm, and none of significance. The resident also referred to the landlord being in breach of contract. The resident did not specify which contract or which terms were breached, whether expressed or implied. We do not investigate a case as a court would and undertake a legal analysis of the resident’s complaint but we do consider whether the landlord has acted reasonably in all the circumstances, which would include complying with its legal obligations and applying best practice. There was no dispute that excessive grass cuttings on resident’s property was to be avoided, if possible. While the incidents were frustrating for the resident, we consider that the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports by arranging a sweep and increasing supervision. It is also reasonable to expect a certain level of grass cuttings and also to expect residents to undertake sweeping their own path and door, within reason.
The resident referred to the risk to his health following the pandemic. While we appreciate this may have caused the resident anxiety, the Ombudsman does not make findings about the effects of a landlord’s actions on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence.
Except for one possible occasion in April 2023, there was no evidence that the issue affected the interior of the resident’s property, and there was no evidence of lasting physical damage to property that was put to the landlord in the period investigated. In any event, a claim for damage would have to be addressed by a court, as it would involve legal concepts of negligence.
While the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s reports by sweeping up, carrying out inspections and attending grass cutting, we have noted this is an issue that has been long lasting. The landlord demonstrated that it wished to minimise as far as was practicable the inconvenience even if it could not eliminate it. We appreciate that referring to its service as “brilliant“ would raise expectations.
While the inspections of the grounds were satisfactory and the green in front of the resident’s property appeared neat and tidy in photographs, there was no dispute that grass cuttings were blown onto the resident’s property from time to time. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord explores with the contractors what further steps could be taking to avoid grass debris from reaching the resident’s property and, when possible, attend the grass cutting, when possible, as that appeared to improve the contractors’ performance.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

On 1 March 2023, the resident wrote to say he wanted to make a formal complaint about the dirt being blown into his property and wanting compensation. The landlord did not acknowledge or log a complaint in response. This was inappropriate. The resident referred to previous complaints not being logged. It was frustrating for the resident to have to chase the landlord for an acknowledgement of this complaint. While the resident was unhappy that his complaint was not acknowledged straightaway, and that when it was, it was not the full response, this was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord should take note and ensure that its complaints process is clear and transparent, so residents know what to expect. Moreover, it is noted that the 2023 policy did not specify that a response was due 10 days after acknowledgement. That was confusing but it is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy has since been amended.
The resident was clear in stating that his complaint was about the period 2012-2023. While the Ombudsman did not expect the landlord to review that period, in particular as he had made a complaint in 2020, we would expect the landlord to address the point and provide an explanation. This was frustrating for the resident who felt the landlord had not understood his complaint.
While the landlord was entitled to decline the resident’s proposals including to pay him in excess of £53,000, we are concerned about the use of the phrase “disproportionate and unreasonable” applied to those proposals. This language could come across as personal and required a more tempered explanation.
It is noted that both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses contained the same phrase “If you’re unhappy with our response, please let us know within six months, explaining why and what we could do differently to resolve your complaint”, suggesting that the resident could request an escalation from Stage 2 which was incorrect and confusing for the reader. The Ombudsman will make an order this phrase is removed, if it has not been already.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of his complaint on 25 July 2023 but did not log it until 22 August 2023. It is noted the landlord apologised. However, this delayed the Stage 2 response to 14 September 2023 which meant an overall timescale for its response just under 2 months, which was unreasonable. The accumulation of these issues rendered the complaint handling process confusing and frustrating. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the about the landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about grass and debris to blow onto the resident’s property following grass cutting.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident £50 in relation to its complaint handling.
2. The landlord should remove any indication that a resident can appeal the Stage 2 response, if there is no further stage.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should explore with its contractor:
  1. Whether by using differing techniques and different equipment the grass debris can be avoided.
  2. To impress on the operatives the importance of avoiding blowing cuttings away from the surrounding properties.
  3. Considering its service agreement standards.
  4. Ensuring that the contractors swept up after them as suggested in September 2020.
2. Attend the grass cutting from time to time in order to minimise any grass spray in accordance with its stated intention of 24 May 2024.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.