Stonewater Limited (202010070)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010070

Stonewater Limited

13 July 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 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 resident has complained about the level of service provided by the landlord with regard to grounds maintenance and cleaning and about the handling of his queries about his service charge.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant at a retirement living housing scheme and pays a service charge for several services including grounds maintenance and cleaning of communal areas.
  2. On 27 April 2020 and on 28 May 2020 the resident called the landlord raising concerns about the standard of the cleaning and grounds maintenance works and contending that the service charge should be reduced. The landlord’s records indicate that it arranged for an inspection to assess whether any works should be completed before the next scheduled gardening contractor visit.
  3. On 10 June 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint stating that cleaning had not been carried out to the required standard, rubbish was not swept but blown to the fence, trees did not get trimmed, and carpets in communal areas were dirty.  He also asked the landlord to clarify what was included in the retirement living cost service charge (covering staff) and why the administration charge which had been a weekly charge was removed as of April 2020.
  4. On 6 July 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It advised that the only services that had been reduced during lockdown were repairs and maintenance and that there were regular checks to ensure cleaning and other services were within standard.  It noted that the resident had called on six occasions during the previous three months about the grounds maintenance service and on each occasion the contractor had been recalled to rectify any issue and provide photos.  It noted that trees had been cut back three times during the previous 12 months.
  5. The landlord further clarified that the grounds maintenance contractor attended fortnightly to pick up litter and cut the grass but works had not been completed when the areas had been in use by residents congregating in the gardens due to social distancing.  The contractor had also found it difficult to clean the car park on a day scheduled for the works as residents had not moved cars offsite as requested.
  6. The landlord stated that the carpet had been cleaned at the end of 2019 and would be cleaned again at the end of 2020.  It also advised that the carpets would be changed when the scheme was “rebranded” although it could not state when this would be.  The landlord also broke down the cost of employment that was included in the retirement living cost service charge and explained administration charges were now included in each separate line rather than being a separate, stand–alone charge.
  7. On 8 July 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s Stage 2 complaint, noting he wanted more information on the retirement living costs, why the administration charge had changed and where service charge income had been spent as he did not think he was getting value for money.  The landlord also noted that the resident disputed that the trees had been cut back three times within the previous 12 months.
  8. On 22 July 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It explained further the services provided that were covered by the retirement living charge, attaching also the Retirement Living Service Record which listed what staff would and would not do.  It reiterated that the administrative charge was incorporated into each of the services that had an administrative action attached to it. It provided the three dates when the trees were cut back within the previous 12 months and stated that the cost was included within the grounds maintenance service charge which was reviewed annually.  
  9. In response to resident stating that carpets and furniture were old, the landlord stated that they would be replaced at the cost of the landlord, not residents, under a 5–year program for the rebranding of retirement living communities.  However, Covid-19 had delayed the programme.
  10. The resident stated on 23 July 2020 in response that he remained dissatisfied. He contended that the service charge was too high and requested financial information on the costs incurred by the landlord and expenditure of funds.
  11. On 7 August 2020 the landlord met with the resident on site. According to its record of the meeting it explained that its cleaners and grounds maintenance contractor followed a script each visit and had returned to correct any issues he had brought up.  It advised that trees at the back of the car park were due to be cut. In response to a general concern about value for money, the landlord advised that it could not easily terminate the contract with the existing contractors and that it would have to follow strict procedures about the procurement of new contractors. The landlord advised that the rebrand could take place any time within the next 4 years although everything had been suspended because of Covid-19.
  12. The landlord confirmed that the admin charge was a standard charge of 15% across the board.  It also noted that the resident wanted to see all the invoices in relation to the expenses around the service charges.  In a further conversation the landlord advised that he was on a fixed service charge therefore residents would not pay the difference if the landlord overspent in the year. The landlord advised that having sought advice, under the law, the resident was not able to demand copies of the invoices in relation to the service charges.
  13. The resident proceeded with escalating his complaint to the landlord’s Customer Complaint Panel.  In an email sent on 28 September 2020 he advised that the landlord’s responses had been general, and it had not provided financial information underlying the service charge.
  14. On 13 October 2020, the landlord’s Customer Complaint Panel sent the review outcome.  The Panel advised that it did not agree that there had been sufficient service failure to warrant financial redress.  It stated it considered the explanations, service charge breakdowns, visits and meetings that had been provided had adequately answered the resident’s concerns.  The Panel agreed that a more definitive timeframe for the rebrand of the scheme should be provided as 1-4 years was too vague.
  15. The Panel recommended improvements to communication with residents including the display or delivery of a newssheet, displaying the schedules and specifications for grounds maintenance and cleaning, making a Community Improvement Bid for the deep cleaning of carpets and communal areas and providing information about the Estate Champion role.
  16. On 30 June 2021, the landlord advised this Service that it had visited the resident and identified that he wanted the following grounds maintenance works completed:
    1. Moss removed from around the building.
    2. All paths to the three entrances and the paving around the scheme jet washed.
    3. Moss removed from the plastic car port roof and the plastic roof at the back entrance.
    4. Guttering around the car port cleaned.
    5. All the loose stones in the car park fixed down properly or to be removed.
    6. Sweep the site to remove all dead leaves.

The landlord has provided evidence that it has obtained a quote for the works, which are outside its service agreement and has advised that it will be completing the works on a one-off basis.

  1. The landlord also advised this Service that it will complete all outstanding actions within its service agreement and that it will reimburse all affected residents 50% of the grounds maintenance service for receiving an intermittent service from April 2020 to May 2021.  It has also advised that it will invite the resident to its next two quarterly inspections and that it has new contract management processes in place through which it can deal with concerns raised about the standard of works from contractors.
  2. The resident has advised this Service that he remains dissatisfied as he is concerned that contractors who attend the scheme will not carry out works properly.  He has stated he would like the operatives to be supervised and told exactly what they need to do.

Assessment and findings

  1. Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.  In accordance with paragraph 39(g) the Ombudsman cannot make a determination on the aspect of the resident’s complaint where he argues that the service charge was too high and that it did not represent value for money. If a tenant considers that a fixed service charge is too high, they may be able to have it assessed by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in relation to the overall rent.
  2. In making his complaint the resident raised concerns about the grounds maintenance and communal cleaning service. Whilst the Ombudsman can consider complaints about the standard and frequency of a service being provided by a landlord, our assessment of this issue would focus on the terms of the service specification, whether a landlord has adequate monitoring arrangements in place and what these reveal. We cannot determine whether the service itself is ‘reasonable’, how many times contractors should attend or whether the service provides value for money.
  3. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord sought to reassure the resident about the standard of the grounds maintenance and cleaning services provided insofar as it stated that contractors followed a schedule (script) and that there were regular checks, that it recalled the contractor to rectify issues when shortcomings in the service had been identified, providing details of the trees being cut back.  It also made clear that there were on occasion mitigating circumstances in respect of the grounds maintenance contractor being prevented from carry out its duties and that the service charge provided for the yearly cleaning of carpets but not the replacement.
  4. The landlord also took reasonable steps to explain the retirement living costs charge by listing all the housing management services and employment costs that it covered.  The landlord by also advising that there was a 15% administration charge across the board took further steps to provide clarification on the service charge.
  5. However, the landlord’s responses to the resident were general and not sufficiently detailed.  Whilst advising that contractors followed a schedule it did not provide the resident with, or otherwise make clear, the details of the schedule and the standards/specification for their works within.  The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about the level of service he could expect to receive in relation to cleaning and grounds maintenance.  This omission was particularly significant as the resident did not specify why he was unhappy with the services, other than leaves not being removed. 
  6. In addition, confirming how frequently the contractors should attend the scheme (and the impact of Covid-19) may have also contributed towards managing the resident’s expectations and resolving the complaint as the condition of the scheme cannot be expected to remain unchanged between visits. The landlord in its initial response to the resident stated that the grounds maintenance and cleaning services were not affected by Covid-19 but has now accepted that, in fact, services were intermittent. When the complaint was escalated to the landlord’s complaints panel, it had a further opportunity to confirm how Covid-19 was affecting services at that time but it did not do so.
  7. The landlord advised the resident that generally that it carried out checks but did not provide details of when and how it did so.  It also did not make clear to the resident whether it had an over-arching policy and procedure for the monitoring of the grounds maintenance and cleaning services, and/or a process for generally ensuring that services were being provided to a satisfactory standard.  Nor has evidence been provided to this Service of the landlord’s arrangements for monitoring and that it proactively checked the resident’s scheme during the period pertaining to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not therefore demonstrate to the resident that it had taken reasonable steps to confirm that contractors had attended as required and had satisfactorily provided the cleaning and grounds maintenance services. 
  8. The resident requested that the landlord provide him with copies of invoices in relation to the service charge.  The landlord addressed this request stating that it did not have an obligation to provide this information, according to its understanding of the law.  It is not within the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the resident as a tenant is entitled to be sent invoices relating to a fixed service charge.  Nonetheless, the landlord has shown the Ombudsman how the weekly service charge for each household for various services are calculated.  There is no evidence that the landlord summarised this information for the resident and had it done so, this too may have reassured the resident about the reasonableness of his service charge.
  9. Since responding to the resident’s complaint, it has reassessed his case.  It has now accepted that it did not provide services to the required level due to Covid-19 pandemic. By offering a rebate of 50%, the landlord has offered provided redress for the shortcomings in the service proportionate to the circumstances of the case, given the mitigating circumstances of the pandemic and the fact that services were provided, albeit intermittently by its own acceptance. It has also agreed to carry out works on a one-off basis. As these works are not covered by the service charge it is acted over and above its obligation and it is demonstrating its intention to resolve the outstanding substantive grounds maintenance and cleaning issues.
  10. However, the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s shortcomings in its responses at the time the resident submitted his complaint, as summarised in paragraph 24 to 26 of the report remains.  Moreover, the landlord could have better managed the resident’s expectation about the level of service by explaining at an earlier point that the contractor’s attendance was intermittent due to Covid-19.  This omission led to further dissatisfaction and to additional time and trouble incurred by the resident in pursuing his complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. Whilst advising that contractors followed a schedule it did not provide the resident with, or otherwise make clear, the details of the schedule and the standards/specification for their works within. The landlord also did not make clear how frequently the contractors should attend the scheme (and the impact of Covid-19). The landlord advised the resident that generally that it carried out checks but did not provide details of when and how it did so.  It also did not make clear to the resident whether it had an over-arching policy and procedure for the monitoring of the grounds maintenance and cleaning services, and/or a process for generally ensuring that services were being provided to a satisfactory standard.  Nor has evidence been provided to this Service of the landlord’s arrangements for monitoring and that it proactively checked the resident’s scheme during the period pertaining to the resident’s complaint.  Taken altogether the landlord’s responses to the complaint were insufficiently clear and detailed.  As such it did not manage the resident’s expectations about the level of service it should be providing.

Orders

  1. The landlord pays the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of his complaint.
  2. The landlord writes to the resident to confirm whether it will be publishing the cleaning and grounds maintenance schedule and specifications as recommended by the Customer Complaint Panel.  The landlord is to also confirm what action it will be taking in respect of the other recommendations made by the Panel (as noted in paragraph 19 of the report).
  3. The landlord is to explain to the resident how it intends to monitor the performance of the contractors, ensure that works are carried out to a satisfactory standards and deal with concerns raised about the standard of works.