Stonewater Limited (202314128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314128

Stonewater Limited

16 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the landlord had not maintained the external communal areas.

Background

The resident and her partner are assured tenants of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy started in February 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom house on a new build estate where the landlord maintains some communal areas.
The landlord has recorded physical health vulnerabilities for the resident’s partner. The resident has told the landlord about her physical health vulnerabilities.
The tenancy agreement confirms that at the start of the tenancy there was a £4 per week service charge included in the rent total. It does not state what the service charge was for.
On 3 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that since the communal planting in April, no maintenance had been completed. The landlord told the resident it had passed the message to its new build team, and they would contact the contractor responsible.
In September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the lack of maintenance of external communal areas since she moved in. She explained that thistles and weeds were waist high. The resident wanted the landlord to regularly maintain the planted areas and if some areas were resident responsibility, for them to be told. She wanted a service charge refund.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised and acknowledged it had not instructed a grounds maintenance contractor to start work on the estate. It confirmed it had not paid any money to a contractor. In response to the resident’s request for a service charge refund the landlord said this was not possible as the £4 a week service charge was incorporated into the rent value (80% of the market value). However, on 20 January 2023, it made a service charge refund payment to the resident’s account of £231.43.
The landlord agreed to review what work was needed and undertake maintenance work without further delay. It offered £200 compensation for the confusion caused and the delayed complaint response.
The landlord appointed a contractor, and work was carried out including litter picks, weeding, tidying beds, and hard standing, on 14, 21 and 22 Feb 2023, 18 April 2023, and 10 May 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal process. She said nothing had been done despite a compensation payment, a partial refund to her rent account, and a promise that a contractor would be appointed. The resident said she had to climb over the weeds getting in or out of her car.
The landlord’s contractor carried out work to the communal areas on 31 May 2023. They had tried to spray the weeds the week before, but it was too windy.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord explained the process it took to appoint a new contractor and listed the dates the contractor had attended. It said the contractor would spray the area shortly. The landlord apologised for the level of service the resident had received but assured her it had weekly catch ups and monthly performance meetings with the contractor.
The contractor attended on 19 June, 5 and 25 July 2023. The completed work documented on the sign off sheets, did not include spraying the weeds.

Post internal complaints process

At the end of July 2023 the resident said the issues were still ongoing and brought her case to the Ombudsman. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to ensure regular attendance and maintenance of the communal grounds.
On 15 July 2024, the landlord paid £210.16 service charge refund payment to the resident’s account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the service provided by the landlord for communal ground maintenance is not equal to the charge included in their service charge. We can investigate the landlord’s management of the ground maintenance contractor and the reasonableness of its actions when the resident complained. We cannot determine whether the service itself is ‘reasonable’, for example how many times contractors should attend or whether the service provides value for money. In these cases, it may be more effective for the matter to be taken to the First Tier (Property) Tribunal. The tribunal can provide an expert opinion on the reasonableness of the service.

Communal area maintenance

The landlord’s estate services document tells us that it will carry out different types of grounds maintenance jobs at certain times of year. The jobs include:
1. Grass cutting.
2. Weed, algae and moss control.
3. Hedges, shrubs and rosebushes.
4. Summer bed and container preparation.
5. Hanging basket preparation.
6. Tree maintenance.
The months that work would normally be carried out was from March to October, but the landlord does say it may have to visit outside those times if more work is needed.
It was not in dispute that the landlord had grounds maintenance responsibilities where the resident lived.
The landlord told the resident that it had not instructed a grounds maintenance contractor to start work on her estate. The landlord did not explain to the resident why this was the case. The Ombudsman understands that there may have been justifiable reasons why there was no service in place at the time the resident moved in. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide the following information to residents:
1. An explanation of what the residents’ service charge covered.
2. An explanation as to why there was no grounds maintenance service in place.
3. An interim plan to manage the grounds maintenance.
4. A timeframe for when a regular service would commence.
5. What that regular service would look like, so how often and what jobs would be carried out.
6. If the landlord used a contractor, how their performance would be monitored.
7. An explanation of how any service charge refunds would be processed.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not provide the resident with a full explanation and there has been no evidence provided as part of this investigation that confirmed any of the above was provided to residents. The landlord has shown the Ombudsman its estate services document, but it is not clear if residents were given a copy of this when they moved in. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident did not know when to expect a full grounds maintenance service.
The landlord tried to put things right. It told the resident it would visit within 3 weeks to review what was needed and look to complete any maintenance work needed. The remedies to ensure a maintenance service was provided were not comprehensive enough. The landlord should have arranged to visit sooner, given the resident’s concern about her safety. It should have agreed to follow up the visit with confirmation of the outcome of the visit and the plan, with proposed timescales.
In June 2023, at stage 2 of the internal complaint process, the landlord told the resident who the appointed grounds maintenance contractor was. It had known this from at least February 2023 as the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the contractor’s work sign off sheets. It is not clear if the resident was informed of this at the time. Considering her complaint was about the lack of grounds maintenance and the remedy was to appoint a contractor, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident, or all its residents on the estate, updated. Paragraph 6.5 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) tells us that landlords should follow any remedy through to completion. The landlord did, but seemingly failed to tell the resident it had done so until 4 months later. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not focused on the customer.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered a more comprehensive explanation for its failings. It detailed who the contractor was, the dates they had attended and how the landlord would monitor their performance. The landlord acted reasonably. The resident knew what the landlord was doing to improve the service.
The landlord told the resident the contractor had not been able to spray the weeds due to the weather, but it would do this shortly. The landlord should have gone further and given a timeframe for this work. Paragraph 6.5 of the Code says that any remedy must clearly set out what will happen and by when. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident had to chase the landlord 2 weeks later as after 2 weeks of good weather, the weed spraying had not been completed. The resident did not know when this was due to be done as the landlord’s timeframe was too vague.
Across the complaint process the landlord offered £200 compensation for the confusion and the delayed complaint response. The landlord has confirmed it refunded £441.59 to the resident’s rent account to cover the service charge paid (for grounds maintenance) from the commencement of her tenancy to 29 April 2024, where there was either substandard or no grounds maintenance service. The financial remedy was fair. The landlord uses the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as a guideline for its compensation policy. Within this, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. The financial remedy in this case is considered proportionate given the circumstances of the case and considering the service charge refund. As such, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for the shortcomings in its service.
The landlord has shared with the Ombudsman further changes that it has made to learn from the outcomes of complaints like this and improve its estate services. The landlord employs staff who now periodically grade the grounds maintenance service in line with set criteria. It has hired an estate services manager who will review and monitor all estate services and identify any improvements.
The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the landlord had not maintained the external communal areas, is based on the understanding that the compensation will be paid, if not done so already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress for its response to the resident’s report of no communal area maintenance, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident the £200 compensation offered at stage 1 of the complaint process, if not already done so.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to confirm with the resident the vulnerabilities within the household and which ones should be recorded on the landlord’s systems.