Stonewater Limited (202221127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221127

Stonewater Limited

14 March 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unsatisfactory ground maintenance.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy on a 2-bedroom flat owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 28 August 1998. Within the property’s boundary are a small communal grassed area and a paved area that was once set aside for drying clothes. Adjacent to the property, there is a resident car park. The resident lives with his partner. For the purpose of this report, both the resident and his partner will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
In May 2022, this service investigated a complaint by the resident about service charges paid for grounds maintenance and cleaning of communal areas. This service found that communal areas had not been regularly inspected, and the services provided were not of an acceptable standard as set out in the landlord’s estate policy.
During its internal complaint process, the landlord acknowledged its failings and recognised that it did not communicate effectively with the resident. In its June 2021 response letter, it offered a discount on the service charges the resident had incurred for grounds maintenance and cleaning and £400 in compensation for the inconvenience caused. This service determined in May 2022 that the landlord had put things right for the resident, which amounted to reasonable redress. We recommended that the landlord inform residents when inspecting communal areas and provide photographic evidence of the inspections.
The resident and the landlord had been engaged in continued correspondence, which was still ongoing. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2022 that it did not adopt the Ombudsman’s recommendations, that the drying area had not been restored, and that it had not kept the grounds and communal areas to acceptable standards. This service understands that to restore the drying areas and the communal garden, the landlord needed to carry out some additional landscaping work.
On 23 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to see pictures and reports from its estate inspections. He said the landlord graded the site satisfactory in October, November, and December 2022. However, he did not believe it was, and according to the resident, the landlord’s surveyor had agreed with him. He maintained that the grounds had not been maintained and that he could not use the communal garden or the rotary drier area. He asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
Throughout the complaint process, the landlord maintained that:
1. It approved the required work and pushed to restore the drying area. It would do everything possible to book this as quickly as possible and ensure it kept the resident up to date.
2. It apologised that the resident had not received responses to its letters, and it had committed to improving communication and rebuilding its relationship with the resident. To ensure residents were notified of its site inspections, it sent text messages to inform all residents when site inspections would occur.
3. It kept its “eyes on the ground” to ensure improved performance. This included collating photographic evidence during its bimonthly visits. If shortcomings had been identified, it would ‘immediately’ address this with its contractors. It could see that contractors were delivering to an acceptable standard, and it would monitor them going forward.
In its final response letter on 20 January 2023, the landlord conceded that its contractor had not provided the grounds maintenance service as “needed and expected”. It said that in previous complaints, it had stated how it monitored this but “had also struggled to demonstrate any improvements”. It also said it could not change what had happened previously and could only strive to find new ways of working and provide a better service.
The resident approached this service on 8 December 2022, prior to the landlord’s issuing its final response letter. He said the landlord was willing to offer compensation for the issue at hand but had not adopted the Ombudsman’s recommendations to address the underlying problem. The resident requested that the landlord take responsibility for the issue and deliver improvements to the service for which he was paying a service charge. Alternatively, if the landlord was unable to do so, the resident requested that it stop charging the applicable service charges.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
Previously, this service found that the landlord failed to keep the communal parts to the standards outlined in its estate policy. The landlord acknowledged its failings within its internal complaint process and identified learning from the complaint. It paid compensation to the resident, refunded some of the estate service charges, and had a plan to bring its estate services to standards. We, therefore, determined that the landlord resolved the complaint reasonably.
Following our determination in May 2022, the landlord checked with its staff whether it had kept reports from its estate inspections. The response was that an inspection in March 2022 had found “broken glass and rubbish in the car park, fly-tipped, litter sighted in bushes adjacent to the car park and the paving slabs damaged/missing”. The landlord could not show it inspected the common areas as scheduled for 30 March, 13 April, and 27 April 2022, exposing an issue with its record keeping.
On 27 May 2022, the resident posted pictures of the common parts on the landlord’s social media, stating that promises of improvement had not materialised. The landlord arranged for its director of operations to visit the site. Subsequently, it agreed with the resident that services had not been delivered to standards. Its June 2022 letter to the resident said it had now introduced measures to bring its estate services up to standard. It also said it scheduled further work to reinstate the drying area, which would take place in July 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised and put in place measures to improve services.
The resident maintained that things did not change in reality, and in its July 2022 response, the landlord recognised that it had “still not got this right”. It devised its improvement plan and said it had requested operatives to take “comprehensive pictures of all the areas so that it could actively monitor the standard of work being done”. It also said it would carry out more site inspections. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised; however, this was the third time that the landlord’s improvement plan failed to bring about the improvement needed.
In August 2022, the landlord said it “sincerely believed” the contract was being delivered to a reasonable standard based on the evidence and records from its contractors and colleagues on site. It said it had ‘eyes on the ground’ and made sure performance improved. This service has not seen the evidence the landlord referred to. However, the landlord inspected the site 7 working days later and rated its ground maintenance ‘D’ (not satisfactory), the lowest rating in the estate policy. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that services were not delivered to standards when the landlord sent its July 2022 response, and the landlord’s response damaged the relationship between the resident and the landlord.
Furthermore, works to reinstate the drying area that the landlord said had been booked to start in July 2022 failed to materialise, further undermining the trust and confidence the resident had in the landlord.
In October 2022, the resident requested that the landlord share the evidence it relied on when it concluded that services had been carried out to standards. The landlord could only provide information from the tracker on its contractors’ van. This did not prove whether the service had been delivered and to what standards. It further weakened the landlord’s claim that it had eyes on the ground.
The landlord had an indication in May 2022 that there was an issue with its record-keeping (paragraph 12). There is no evidence that it took remedial action to address the shortcomings in its record-keeping then. Consequently, it was unable to rely on its record to measure its contractor’s performance and it therefore missed an opportunity here to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
On 20 January 2023, the landlord conceded that its contractor had not provided the grounds maintenance service as “needed and expected”. It said that in previous complaints, it had stated how it monitored this but “had also struggled to demonstrate any improvements”. It also said it could not change what had happened previously and could only strive to find new ways and provide a better service. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its mistakes, apologise, and commit to a new way of working. The landlord was tasked with delivering on its promises, as this was the 4th time it promised the end results but failed to specify how it would deliver on its promises or what it would do differently this time.
It is, therefore, particularly concerning that despite the landlord’s renewed commitment, the condition of the estate has deteriorated from the previous ‘B’ rating (satisfactory) to ‘C’ (not satisfactory) from January through to August 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord actively monitored its estate inspection reports or took action in response to emails from staff requesting that it would address the shortcomings identified with its contractor’s performance. The lack of action was not appropriate.
On 24 January 2023, the landlord’s mobile associate who inspected the site stated that the issues raised on the resident’s estate could have been resolved ‘very easily’ if the work was “organised, carried out, and completed in full”. He reported in September 2022 that he understood why the resident was being ‘unhappy’. He kept reporting that the site looked “untidy”, that the contractor had not completed their tasks in full, and any work carried out was of “poor quality”. On 8 February 2023, he said he reported these issues repeatedly to the landlord during his estate inspection, but “nothing seemed to change”.
Furthermore, internally, the landlord acknowledged as late as November 2023 that the scheme had been on its “radar for months” and was “disappointed to see very little change”. It said it had tried several times to attend to and resolve a section in the common parts reserved for drying clothes but found “more issues each time”. Evidently, the landlord was not resolution-focused here, and the issue was left unresolved for an extended period. This service understands that work to reinstate the drying area started after a delay of 16 months since the landlord’s assurance that it had scheduled the work. It has now been completed, although the resident had raised concerns over the quality and longevity of the work. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed these concerns.
Overall, the landlord had contractors in place to upkeep the standards of its estates for which it was being charged. It had a mobile associate who inspected the works and corroborated the residents’ complaints. The mobile associate firmly identified that there was an issue with the contractor’s performance on site. Evidently, there was a disconnect between the reports coming to the landlord from its staff and residents, as these did not manifest in improvements by the contractor on the grounds.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says Landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or system. The remedy to resolve a complaint must set out what will happen and when. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord spent a lot of time and effort dealing with the resident’s repeated complaints. It paid the resident nearly £3,000 in refunds and compensation during this time, but there was no evidence that it considered effective ways to stop the issue from reoccurring. There is no evidence that it revised its process, set an action plan, or followed its promises through to completion. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unsatisfactory ground maintenance.
The resident evidently spent a lot of time and effort since 2004, pursuing the landlord and taking action to restore the common grounds and upkeep good standards of ground maintenance. This was particularly important for the resident and 1 other neighbour on the estate as the drying area was the only place they could dry their laundry outdoors as they did not have a private garden. The ongoing issue and the sustained pursuit of the matter have caused distress, inconvenience, and frustration.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to put this right for the resident, which includes compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and an action plan to deliver measurable improvements on the ground.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent the issue from recurring. A further order is made below to address this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unsatisfactory ground maintenance.

Orders and recommendations

Within six weeks from the date of this report, the relevant heads of service, who have overlapping responsibilities in this complaint, must arrange a meeting to review the case. During the meeting, they should identify the issues that went wrong and what measures they need to take to ensure that this complaint is resolved, and other similar complaints do not arise in the future. As part of the review, they must discuss the following:
1. The repeated failure to deliver on promises made in its complaint responses.
2. The recurring failings in its communications with the resident, which it recognized in its complaint responses.
3. The gaps in its record-keeping.
4. The failure to act on reports from mobile associates.
5. The oversight it has on contractors’ performance.
6. The management team must also arrange a face-to-face meeting with the contractor to discuss the necessary steps needed to bring the resident’s estate up to standard. It must also agree on the measures to be implemented to ensure the ongoing upkeep of the estate, to standards. This could include taking pictures or any other process that would enable the landlord to monitor the contractor’s performance, address shortcomings proactively, and retain the evidence it could rely on to show satisfactory service delivery. The rationale for the decisions must be explained in the review document.
7. It must also establish a system to keep residents up to date on an ongoing basis, which could be in the form of a notice board, an electronic newsletter, or SMS text messages. The system should list the dates of the upcoming contractor’s visit and the forthcoming estate inspection. It must also summarize the actions taken/will be taken to ensure shortcomings are addressed proactively.
8. This service must receive a copy of the review document and a summary from the resident within six weeks.
The landlord must pay the resident £350 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience within 6 weeks of the date of this report.