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

Your Housing Limited (202005876)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005876

Your Housing Limited

21 May 2021


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 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 concerns:
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of grounds maintenance in communal areas.
  2. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property is in a block of flats, surrounded by green communal areas.
  2. The matter regarding the level of grounds maintenance was raised with the landlord by multiple occupiers but was escalated to this Service by one individual resident. Therefore, for clarity purposes, the complainant party will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  3. The contractor responsible for the upkeep of the grounds surrounding the property took over the contract in May 2018.

Summary of events

  1. Communication records show that the resident’s concerns regarding the level of grounds maintenance have been ongoing since the new contractor was appointed in May 2018. The landlord carried out monthly inspections on 9 December 2019, 6 January 2020, and 3 February 2020, and deemed that the standard of the grounds maintenance and cleaning in the communal areas was “overall fine”.
  2. The resident emailed the contractor on 17 May 2020, with regard to the state of the rose bed found in proximity to the property’s windows that had reportedly “not been maintained for at least one year”. The contractor responded on the same day, asked the resident to “bear with” them as they had to “catch back up over the next [six] weeks” and advised that they “won’t be pruning any shrubs/hedges in the bed or on site until July” due to the “bird nesting season”. The resident, contractor, and landlord continued to discuss the above on 18 May, 23 June, and 1 July 2020.
  3. On 11 June 2020, the resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord, noting the following, among other matters:
  1. He had submitted two general enquiries to the landlord on 9 March and 12 May 2020, to which he was yet to receive responses.
  2. The resident confirmed that, on 9 March 2020, he had advised the landlord that there was “no garden maintenance” between 26 November 2019 and 3 March 2020, and queried whether a service charge rebate would be offered for this.
  3. As a resolution, the resident asked the landlord to provide a response and an explanation to his above queries.
  1. The landlord liaised with the resident and the contractor between 12 and 17 June 2020, in order to address the resident’s concerns. The contractor confirmed that they would attend the property on 18 June 2020 and carry out works in the car park area. Furthermore, the contractor confirmed that they had attended the property on 20 December 2019, 30 January 2020, and 19 February 2020, as per the schedule agreed with the landlord.
  2. The contractor emailed the landlord on 19 June 2020 to confirm the works carried out to clear areas in the car park and strim a banking and provided photographic evidence of this.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 July 2020, with the following stage zero complaint response:
    1. As per the terms of their agreement, the contractor would attend the property once a month between November to March, as these are winter months, and that it was not a requirement for them to provide photographic proof of attendance.
    2. It confirmed that the contractor attended the property on 20 December 2019, 30 January 2020, and 19 February 2020, during the winter months.
    3. The “service was stopped in April for one month” due to the Covid-19 restrictions imposed by the Government.
    4. The landlord advised that the rose beds were not tended to in March due to the Covid-19 restrictions imposed; however, it confirmed that it carried out the necessary works as a gesture of goodwill.
    5. It advised that it was in the process of implementing a system that would allow the contractor to provide “before and after” photographs to show the works carried out during each visit.
    6. It advised that, as it had “addressed the matters” raised, it would consider the complaint closed.
  4. On 24 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request for his complaint to be escalated for review because he felt that the landlord did not address his complaint fully, including about its earlier lack of communication in response to his above queries.
  5. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 18 August 2020, addressing the resident’s queries in relation to communication issues, service charges, and “contractor attendance and service quality”. In respect of the latter, the landlord advised that:
  1. It did not dispute the resident’s claims that the contractor did not attend the property in December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020 and advised that it was “difficult for [it] to determine [the contractor’s] attendance and/or work completed without having been on site at the time to witness this when the contractor has provided evidence to support their visit.”
  2. It would “provide a credit on grounds maintenance (…) against the service charge” to the resident for December 2019, January 2020, and February 2020, if he felt that the service was not to standard.
  3. Certain works would not be carried out on each visit when it was not reasonable to do so, including due to weather and ground conditions during winter, and it attached a copy of the “annual programme” of works.
  4. The contractor was not obliged to supply photographs for each visit and instead these were taken “on an ad hoc basis by staff”.
  5. Due to recent changes to the contractor’s devices, it would be able to access “before and after” photographs.
  6. Moving forward, the contractor was to attend the property and carry out works as per the existing annual schedule. In order to ensure compliance with this, inspections and audits would be carried out by both the contractor and the landlord within 48 hours of the contractor’s attendance “on the majority of occasions”, along with the landlord’s monthly site inspection.
  1. The contractor attended the property on 20 and 24 August 2020 to carry out works and assess whether these were up to standard and compliant with their contract.
  2. On 30 August 2020, the resident replied to the above stage one complaint response, expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and requested for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints procedure, including to view evidence of the contractor’s works at the property.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 September 2020 and advised that it would not escalate his complaint to the second and final stage of its complaints process because it had addressed all of the points raised in its initial complaint response.
  4. The resident’s local councillor then wrote to this Service on 14 September 2020 to refer his complaint to us in the capacity of his designated person. The councillor’s letter stated that “the landlord ha[d] refused to acknowledge the validity of [his] complaint that gardening staff were not performing duties for which service charges were being levied”. Furthermore, the letter stated that the landlord was “relying on vehicle tracking data to claim that gardeners ha[d] completed work” despite the resident advising that, while the vehicles were present at the property on the indicated dates, the operatives “did not carry out the required work”. Therefore, as a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to acknowledge the validity of his complaint and provide an “appropriate apology and compensation”, along with “assurance that [the] required work is carried out in [the] future”.
  5. On 16 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord in relation to its contractor’s last visit to the property. The resident confirmed that the contractor “cut the grass properly” and “trimmed two small bushes”. However, he raised further concerns regarding the standard of grounds maintenance and informed the landlord that he, and the other residents, were “fed up [of] looking at the mess” which led to them having “a day of revitalising the area” because of overgrown bushes and vegetation in one area that had “been neglected severely and not touched over the last three visits.”
  6. The resident submitted a new complaint form to the landlord on 26 November 2020, in relation to the contractor’s latest visit. The resident advised that he was unhappy with the standard of the of work as “a substantial amount of blown leaves were left on site”, “a leaf blower was used around all cars [,] kicking up debris over the cars”, “no weeding was done”, and certain shrubs were not trimmed nor grass cut, as per the annual schedule. The landlord therefore contacted the resident on 3 December 2020 to discuss his concerns further, for which it agreed to arrange to visit the site with him alongside the next contractor’s attendance.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

  1. The terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement state that, “in the case of flats and other homes with shared areas”, it would “take reasonable care to keep” these in repair and working order, as well as that it would provide the services that he paid it a service charge for under the agreement.

Grounds maintenance service specification

  1. The annual schedule of works, included in the landlord’s grounds maintenance service specification, states that the contractor is to carry out works as per below:
  1. “Grass cutting every [ten] working days” during the summer months (April to October) and once a month between November to March, only if required.
  2. “Litter picking” every ten working days during the summer months and once a month during the winter.
  3. “Shrub pruning once or twice per year, depending on species” and “hedge trimming from [two] times per year but up to [four] times per year (depending on species size and location)”.
  4. “Rose pruning once a year in March”.
  1. Additionally, the grounds maintenance service specification details extensive criteria regarding the upkeep of communal areas, including with regard to the standard, method and frequency of contractors’ grounds maintenance inspections and works.

The landlord’s complaints procedure

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback procedure states that it “reserves the right to take a complaint outside of the procedure or choose to close the complaint at any stage of the procedure, giving detailed reasons for the decision.” The landlord operates a three–stage complaints procedure, as per below:
  1. Stage zero – the landlord commits to issuing an acknowledgement within two working days and a response within ten working days.
  2. Stage one – the landlord commits to completing an investigation and issuing a response within 15 working days.
  3. Stage two – a senior member of the landlord’s staff, “who was not involved in the original complaint” would carry out a review of the complaint and issue a response within “a longer time”.

The landlord’s compensation policy

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy covers discretionary payments and defines these as payments “made to maintain good relations” between itself and the resident the compensation is paid to that “will be proportionate with the level of inconvenience, stress, disturbance or annoyance suffered”. The policy recommends that the landlord offers the resident compensation for the amount equivalent to the service charge for a service that has not been received and £100 compensation for distress, inconvenience, miscommunication and delays in resolving complaints.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of grounds maintenance in communal areas

  1. As detailed above at paragraph 5, the resident had been expressing his dissatisfaction with the standard of grounds maintenance in communal areas to the landlord since the appointment of the new contractor in May 2018. However, the complaint brought to this Service investigated events that occurred from December 2019 onwards. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the same timeline of events as the latter complaint because we cannot determine matters that did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. On 11 June 2020, the resident lodged a formal stage zero complaint with the landlord due to a lack of grounds maintenance works being carried out between December 2019 and March 2020. The landlord acknowledged and addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction in its stage one complaint response, issued on 18 August 2020. Considering its stage one complaint response, the landlord acted in a reasonable manner because it reported that, as per its tracking data, the contractor attended the property on 20 December 2019, 30 January 2020, and 19 February 2020, which was in line with the annual schedule of works corresponding to the winter months above at paragraph 20.
  3. However, the landlord could not verify whether any works were carried out because it was not present at the site. Therefore, the landlord offered to provide the resident with a credit for grounds maintenance works against the service charges, because it could not confirm whether works were carried out and he was unhappy with the level of maintenance carried out, which was reasonable and also in line with its compensation policy for discretionary payments, detailed at paragraph 23 above. This is because the policy recommended that the landlord offer the resident compensation for the amount equivalent to the service charge for the service that had not been received.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord advised that it was working on implementing a new system that would allow it to review before–and–after photographs, and that it would increase the number of inspections and audits carried out by both itself and the contractor. While these measures would not change any shortfalls in the service provided up until that point, these were reasonable and were meant to ensure that, moving forward, the standards of grounds maintenance works were adhered to. As the resident subsequently informed the landlord on 16 September and 26 November 2020 that the standard of the works were still unsatisfactory, it was also reasonable for it to discuss this with him on 3 December 2020 and to agree to arrange to visit the site with him alongside the next contractor’s attendance.
  5. It is also noted that the complaint investigated by the landlord mainly focused on the resident’s dissatisfaction with the constant level of grounds maintenance works carried out. Considering the specific terms laid out in the grounds maintenance service specification, along with the information brought forward to this Service, it would not be possible for us to make a determination on whether the works carried out were in line with the standards and schedule imposed on a particular occasion and it is not our role to do so. We can instead only consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about this issue appropriately and in line with his tenancy agreement and its policies, procedures and other obligations. However, the actions proposed by it for monitoring future works should ensure that all future visits and works are documented.
  6. To conclude, this Service appreciates the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of grounds maintenance works, or lack thereof, carried out at the property. However, considering that the landlord offered compensation in the form of credit and detailed specific and appropriate actions that would be implemented to ensure that the level of works is satisfactory, it took reasonable steps to address and resolve the resident’s queries and concerns.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s annual schedule of works, detailed at paragraph 20(d) above, states that rose beds are to be pruned once a year, in March. In its stage zero complaint response on 7 July 2020, the landlord stated that, in 2020, the rose beds were not pruned in March due to the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, at the same time, it noted that the grounds maintenance service was stopped in April 2020 for the same reason. In this instance, the landlord provided the resident with contradictory information, which was unreasonable as doing so would cause confusion and unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.
  2. Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 18 August 2020 and the resident emailed it on 30 August 2020 to request for his complaint to be escalated to the next and final stage of its complaints procedure. However, the landlord replied to him on 7 September 2020, advising that it would not accommodate this request as it had addressed all of his queries and concerns.
  3. As detailed above at paragraph 22, the landlord’s customer feedback procedure allows for a certain level of discretion to be applied when deciding whether a complaint should be investigated further. Therefore, it was compliant with its procedure when refusing to escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage of the procedure. Nevertheless, it is of concern that the landlord did not give him its detailed reasons for the decision as required by its procedure, particularly in light of his ongoing concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance in communal areas and its communication and complaint handling.
  4. To conclude, this Service appreciates the frustration experienced by the resident in respect of the landlord’s refusal to escalate his complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure, but it was permitted to do so, as per its customer feedback procedure. However, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it offered contradictory information in its stage zero complaint response and did not give the resident its detailed reasons for not escalating the complaint. It has therefore been ordered below to compensate him for this in line with its compensation policy above at paragraph 23 and recommended to review its staff’s training needs.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its communication and complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of its handling of his reports of a lack of grounds maintenance in communal areas satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord provided the resident with contradictory information in its stage zero complaint response and did not give him its detailed reasons for not escalating his final stage complaint.
  2. The landlord took reasonable steps to provide a satisfactory resolution to the resident’s reports of a lack of grounds maintenance in communal areas by offering him compensation in the form of a credit for this and implementing procedural changes to try and resolve his concerns.


Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
  1. Pay the resident £100 compensation within four weeks in recognition of any inconvenience that he experienced as a result of its failure to provide consistent information and detailed reasons for not escalating his complaint.
  2. Confirm, within four weeks, whether it has already provided the resident with the credit offered as part of its stage one complaint response. If this was not done, then the landlord is to confirm when it will issue this.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to complaint handling and compensation, which should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendation.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.