London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202104345)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104345

L & Q Beacon Homes Limited

21 December 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 complaint is about:
    1. the level of service charge for ground maintenance.
    2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of services not provided.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This states “39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion g. concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
  3. In 2019 – 2021 the resident and landlord had several exchanges about the service charge. The resident wanted to know what the service charge covered. The landlord explained that the resident was being charged for “ground maintenance across the whole estate” and referred to a breakdown. The landlord explained that the ground maintenance charge covered not just the resident’s area but also another area. It told the resident that these were part of the same estate and “all residents are required to contribute to this charge” (November 2019).
  4. Following the resident’s further reports of dissatisfaction about the service charge, the landlord explained that the ground maintenance covered “all accessible shared communal areas outside of your property and the estate where there is any landscape works like grass cutting, hedge trimming/cutting”. It went on to state that “this includes areas which are not on your street” and “the cost is equally shared amongst all residents on the estate including those residing in houses. On your estate there are many areas that are not enclosed and consist of grass, trees, hedges, bushes” (January 2020).
  5. The resident disputed that she should be charged for services that were not required (due to the lack of shrubs/trees by her property). She said that she does not have access to the communal areas which the charges covered. She explained that this had no basis in law and she sought a refund of the charges towards this (February 2020).
  6. Following a formal complaint in 2021, the landlord confirmed the service charge for ground maintenance was split across all residents on the estate and this included a number of homes across several roads on the estate. It referred to previous advice which it had given to the resident about her options to contest the charges (e.g. referring to the First Tier Tribunal). At one stage, the resident said that she escalated this with the Tribunal, although the outcome of that is unclear.
  7. The resident continued to dispute the charges. She explained that she wanted a refund of the service charge for ground maintenance for the last four years and for the charge to be removed for the three properties where she lived as they do not get the same service that other properties get (2021).
  8. The resident’s complaint about the level and fairness of the service charge is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. Such matters are better decided by the First Tier Property Tribunal, which is able to make legally binding decisions about the liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges. Accordingly, the complaint about the level of service charge for ground maintenance is ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  9. This finding is not a view on whether the resident’s service charge for ground maintenance is correct or fair. Rather, it reflects the limits of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in respect of investigating it.
  10. The resulting scope of this investigation is limited to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the maintenance of the areas which are relevant to her property, in 2021. Reference to the resident’s dispute about the service charge is made, to give context to the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 1 February 2021 the landlord registered a stage one formal complaint. The resident reported that the ground maintenance had not been carried out and she requested copies of the invoices to confirm that this had been done.
  2. On 14 February 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident was concerned about the service charge structure and how she was being charged.
    2. It said that the service charge for ground maintenance was split across all residents on the estate and this included a number of homes across several roads on the estate.
    3. It explained that this was deemed the most transparent and fair way to split the costs for the residents in the vicinity.
    4. It referenced a guidance note sent to the resident in February 2019 about contesting charges. This directed the resident to the Residential Property Tribunal if she did not accept proposed charges at the time.
    5. In respect of upcoming charges for 2020/21 it advised the resident of her options to contest this and to seek independent advice.
  3. On 16 March 2021 the landlord noted the resident’s escalation. The landlord considered that:
    1. The resident said that she paid for services for ground maintenance but did not get these.
    2. The resident requested proof of works carried out using the schedule and she only received pictures of the same thing.
    3. The resident said that her road did not have grass, beds, hedges, shrubs or trees.
    4. The hard surface was to be swept every two weeks but this was not done at all, so the one thing that they had to do under the schedule was not.
    5. They did not have communal areas.
  4. On 18 March 2021 the contractor emailed the landlord following the landlord’s enquiry into the resident’s claims. The contractor provided details of its visits and said that it had been visiting every two weeks, with dates, and no visits had been missed. The contractor also said that the team were working to the specification (litter picking, grass cutting and hardstanding areas) and it referred to photographs from the two areas in question.
  5. On 18 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident its stage two response and said that:
    1. The property was part of an estate which included 170 units.
    2. Though the resident did not have communal grass areas and shrubs outside the property the service charge for ground maintenance “is the cost payable by all residents for the whole of the estate”.
    3. It provided timestamped photographs to the resident of work completed on different occasions. The contractors were contacted by the landlord and they confirmed the dates of their visits in February and March 2021 and their scheduled works include “litter picking, grass cutting” and “hardstandings”.
    4. The resident had previously made another complaint about the ground maintenance charge in January 2020 and had been advised of the reasons for the charge and gave the resident information in February 2021 about how she could contest the charge. The resident also started a dispute with the Residential Property Tribunal.
    5. The landlord considered that the ground maintenance was being carried out as per the schedule and the complaint was not upheld.
  6. The resident responded and requested the photographs of the team’s attendance on two specific dates (8 and 22 February 2021) and also said that she had CCTV in her home so she could prove that the works were not completed.
  7. In response, the landlord said that the ground maintenance attendance dates were 11 and 25 February 2021. The resident said that she checked the CCTV for 11 February 2021 and confirmed that there was no attendance (22 March 2021). In response, the landlord said that “the service charge for Grounds Maintenance charge you pay is a proportion of the costs which covers … the whole estate. Therefore it is possible you did not capture this on your own personal footage”. In response, the resident remained dissatisfied and said that her camera captured “every single movement outside of my property”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman has considered if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint about the maintenance of the areas which are relevant to her property, in 2021. 
  2. The resident explained to the landlord that its general maintenance team had not come out as required. In response, the landlord investigated this with its contractor who confirmed its attendance and sent it pictures. Following the resident’s continued dispute, the landlord referred to time stamped photographs of the maintained areas.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the resident’s claim about non–attendance by contacting the contractors and seeking confirmation that they were attending the site. It was reasonable for the landlord to share its findings with the resident, in order to address her concern that they were not attending.
  4. The resident continued to dispute this as she explained that her CCTV had not shown attendance, and the landlord replied that it would not, because not all of the services were relevant to her specific property. In other words, if the maintenance team were working elsewhere to deliver the service under the ground maintenance schedule, then they would not be seen on the resident’s CCTV. It is acknowledged that the resident remains dissatisfied, however, there has been no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about services not being provided.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report services not provided.

Reasons

  1. The resident disputed that the landlord carried out the services which it was supposed to. In response the landlord investigated this with its contractor who provided details of its visits. The landlord conveyed this to the resident, with evidence (time stamped photographs).

Recommendation

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, it is recommended that the landlord communicate the terms of the tenancy agreement with the resident which relate to the structure of the service charges, so that she can make an informed decision on how to proceed if she remains dissatisfied.