From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

West Kent Housing Association (202320196)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320196

West Kent Housing Association

14 March 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 grounds maintenance work being charged for through service charges.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated May 2018. The property is a three bedroom house.
  2. The landlord employs a contractor to complete grounds maintenance that the resident contributes towards through a service charge. The landlord put a contract in place with a new contractor from June 2023 when the previous contract ended.
  3. The landlord placed an update on its website in July 2023. The update stated that its new grounds maintenance contractor had experienced staffing issues that it had not anticipated during the procurement process. This meant that the grass cutting had not started as quickly as anticipated. It advised that its contractor had completed some of the required grass cutting and would complete the remaining areas by August 2023. It advised that its contractor would still complete eight cuts in line with the contract and as such there would be no service charge refunds due.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 26 July 2023. He expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of cuts and the appearance of the green spaces that he said affected the quality of life for residents. He stated that the contractor would need to complete the required number cuts within a shorter space of time and questioned the necessity of this. As an outcome he requested a partial refund of the service charges for the affected period.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 10 August 2023. It said:
    1. It had made mistakes, and it was sorry for this.
    2. The unexpected staffing issues with its new contractor had impacted the grass cutting. Its contractor would visit within five working days and the grass and paths would be back to the required standard.
    3. Its former contractor had already completed initial grass cuts and, despite the new contractor’s delays, its new contractor would still complete the cuts in line with its contract. Therefore, there would be no service charge refunds. However, if its contractor did not complete the required cuts, the landlord would decide whether a refund would be due and communicate this to residents.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested escalation of his complaint on 21 August 2023. He asked the landlord to provide a report on when he could expect the standard grounds maintenance programme to be in place. Along with a refund of service charges, he suggested the landlord evaluate its grounds maintenance strategy, so tenants experienced a safe, clean, and well-maintained living environment.
  7. The landlord provided the resident with its final complaint response on 11 September 2023. It confirmed the information provided at stage 1. It advised that its contractor should complete the required number of grass cuts and that the resident’s location would be cut as a priority. It apologised that it had promised this previously and it had not happened. It restated that the resident would not receive a service charge refund as its contractor should meet its obligations. However, it restated that if its contractor did not complete the required eight grass cuts by the end of the year it would decide whether residents would receive compensation. It said it would be in contact with the affected residents about this.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred his complaint to us on 11 September 2023. The resident is seeking:
    1. a refund of the service charges for the period without grounds maintenance.
    2. compensation for the time he was affected by the issue.
    3. confirmation of the dates of cuts, hedge management and pathway weeds management.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint was primarily about grounds maintenance, with a focus on grass cutting and path clearance. The resident also referred to fly-tipped items that were cleared and did not form part of the complaint referred to us. Therefore, the focus of the investigation is on the grass cutting, and path clearance.
  2. For the avoidance of doubt, the Ombudsman’s investigation and assessment will focus on the events that occurred from June 2023 until the date of the landlord’s final response on 11 September 2023.

The landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance work being charged for through service charges.

  1. The landlord had duties under the tenancy agreement to keep the exterior of the property and shared areas in a reasonable state of decoration and repair. The landlord did not have a specific grounds maintenance policy or procedure in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, the requirements were set out within its associated contract. The landlord has shared a summary of the contract with us that says it monitors key performance indicators (KPIs) quarterly. The contract states that its contractor should submit monthly results to be reviewed at review meetings along with reports and supporting data for all the KPIs.
  2. According to the landlord, its contractor was required to complete eight grass cuts during the period March 2023 to April 2024. The contract stated that hedge and tree cutting takes place in the autumn, winter and early spring which postdates the complaint. Hard cleans are normally completed at the same time as grass cutting. The contract period initially ran from March 2023 to December 2023.
  3. The landlord extended the contract period to April 2024 following a merger with another contractor, to allow its contractor time to complete the necessary work after the delays in the work starting. The contractor’s staffing issues and subsequent merger were outside of the landlord’s control and it was reasonable that the landlord allowed some additional time to complete the required grounds maintenance work under the circumstances.
  4. The contract requires the contractor to provide accurate records of inspection and attendance which is the basis on which it would be paid. We have not seen these records. The landlord provided us with exact dates for the initial 3 grass cuts delivered by its previous contractor, but was unable to provide the precise dates the grass cuts took place for the new contractor. The landlord advised us that 2 cuts were completed in July and September. The landlord also advised us that a further 2 cuts had been completed in November and December 2023 with the remaining cuts to be made by April 2024 under the provision of the revised contract.
  5. The landlord’s contract management did not reflect the requirements set out in the contract above. The landlord held contract meetings which was appropriate, however, the minutes of the 29 August 2023 meeting provided to us stated that there were no KPIs in place as required in the landlord’s contract management procedures and specified within the contract itself. A lack of clear records in relation to KPIs would mean that the landlord would not be able to satisfy itself that the work was being completed satisfactorily. This may explain why the landlord advised us when requesting evidence that it had no survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors that documented the condition of the grounds or the quality and frequency of grounds maintenance works. This was not appropriate.
  6. According to the resident’s tenancy agreement the resident must pay fixed service charges as set out in a schedule that the landlord revises annually. This includes but is not limited to services for shared facilities and maintenance regarding the land. The landlord’s service charge policy states that any queries or challenges regards fixed service charges that relate to a service provided will initially be handled by the appropriate contract manager, in this case the manager responsible for grounds maintenance. Its policy states that a resident can make a complaint if they are unhappy with the services provided. In this case the landlord reached out to its contract manager as part of its complaints process in line with its policy to consider the resident’s challenge to the service charges related to the service provided. The landlord’s approach to this was therefore reasonable.
  7. It is clear from the evidence that there were issues with the start and ongoing management of its new contractor. Either party does not dispute this. There was delay in its new contractor starting the grounds maintenance work during the peak growing season. The landlord was clearly aware of these issues due to the contractor’s unforeseen staffing issues. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to update residents on its website.
  8. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord reached out to its contractor. Its contractor advised the landlord that it would complete the work by 7 August 2023, however following the resident’s chase up, the landlord had to contact its contractor again on 10 August 2023. Its contractor said it would complete the work before the end of the week. The resident confirmed that the contractor completed the work outside of his property but not for the surrounding areas as he had expected.
  9. The resident told us that the unsightly appearance of the area was such that he was embarrassed to bring friends and family round. The delay in grass cutting would have caused frustration to the resident considering that it had been three months since the last grass cut and grounds maintenance work completed in May 2023. The landlord apologised in its final response that its contractor had not cut the grass in the surrounding area and said it would prioritise this, which was reasonable.
  10. The resident asked the landlord when escalating his complaint for a detailed report on when to expect a standard maintenance programme in place which was a reasonable request. The landlord did not provide this information. Whilst we appreciate that the landlord could not provide precise dates for the forthcoming visits as grounds maintenance work can be impacted by adverse weather, it could have given the service standards and expected frequency of services. The landlord also missed the opportunity to clarify that the service charge year ran from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. Therefore, the service charge paid towards the two grass cuts completed by its previous contractor between April and May 2023. It would also contribute to the remaining six grass cuts its new contractor was required to complete up until the end of the year. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint earlier.
  11. We recognise that the landlord is required to pay the contractor as per the contract for the services that were due to be delivered and that the resident is under an obligation to pay the fixed service charge. However, there were identified failings in the landlord’s contract management that subsequently impacted on the resident as described.
  12. The landlord’s lack of records was indicative of poor record keeping practices. Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to demonstrate that they have complied with their obligations, for example, under their policies and tenancy agreement as well as legal obligations. Good record keeping is essential so that landlords can ensure that services are delivered appropriately and to standard, and to give accurate information to its residents. Our Spotlight report, available on our website on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) gives recommendations that the landlord should follow and complete a self-assessment against, if it has not already done so.
  13. The landlord advised that the new contractor was to provide an app to keep track of its activities but that it failed to deliver this despite the landlord requesting it. The contractor’s lack of delivery of an app to monitor grounds maintenance was not the landlord’s fault,
  14. The landlord advised in its final response that the complaint helped it to identify areas of improvement that would help to avoid similar situations arising in future procurement exercises. The landlord demonstrated some learning from the complaint that is reasonable and in line with 7.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This states that “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right”. This would assist the landlord in reviewing its approach to the mobilisation of new contractors ensuring the continuity of services. Business continuity normally features as part of the contract.
  15. The landlord has since put in place a scheme of resident inspectors to monitor the work undertaken in a number of locations and to provide feedback after its contractor has visited each time. This was a good step to take, and the landlord could consider how it could extend this scheme to cover other areas. The landlord has also since introduced a requirement for its contractors to provide reports and photographic evidence so it can be assured that the grounds maintenance work is being completed satisfactorily. This is a reasonable step to take and should provide reassurance for the landlord and its residents on the quality of work completed.
  16. The landlord’s complaint handling was generally acceptable other than a short 2-day delay at stage 1. It should also review its responses to ensure that they cover all aspects of a complaint. The landlord did not as mentioned, provide a report of the standard maintenance programme to the resident as he requested to assure him of when its contractor would complete grounds maintenance work in future. It was appropriate, however, to offer an apology acknowledging that mistakes had been made and that it had learnt from this.

Summary and conclusions

  1. In summary:
    1. The landlord was unable to evidence the grounds maintenance work completed, nor the specific dates its new contractor had completed the work. It failed to create and maintain adequate records to provide the resident with accurate information and to satisfy itself that its contractor had completed work satisfactorily.
    2. The landlord did not follow its contract management procedures in ensuring it monitored KPIs at its contract meetings.
  2. The Ombudsman considers that this amounts to service failure for which orders have been made.
  3. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. In line with that guidance a fair level of compensation would be £100. This appropriately recognises the upset and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance work being charged for through service charges.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £100 compensation to recognise the frustration and upset, caused by the identified contract management and record keeping failings in the landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance being charged for through service charges.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a schedule for the grounds’ maintenance work (if it has not already done so) and provide a copy to us.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a self-assessment against out Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website), if it has not already done so, to improve record keeping practices. It must provide a copy of the self-assessment to us.