Home Group Limited (202111155)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111155

Home Group Limited

 16 May 2022

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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Guttering repairs for the resident’s building.
   2. Communal grounds maintenance.
   3. Restrictions placed on the resident’s contact with the landlord.
   4. The resident’s concerns about the level of the service charge.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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. After carefully considering all the evidence. the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Restrictions placed on the resident’s contact with the landlord

3. During a telephone conversation with this Service on 18 February 2022, the resident stated her dissatisfaction with the restrictions the landlord had placed on her contact with it and requested that this element was added to the complaint. This issue was not raised by the resident as part of her formal complaint to the landlord. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaint procedure.
4. Therefore, this element will not be considered in this report. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this issue through its complaints process. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding this matter if she wishes to pursue it further.

The resident’s concerns about the level of the service charge

5. The resident is dissatisfied with service charges levied by the landlord in relation to projected and actual costs. Under Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident may be able to contact the First-Trier Tribunal if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Background

6. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
7. The resident has experienced ongoing issues with the condition of the guttering for the building and the quality of cleaning of the grounds of the estate. The resident first raised concerns with the landlord about these matters in 2019.
8. The resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord on 6 December 2020. She described the elements of her complaint as:
   1. Noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) she had experienced from a neighbour.
   2. The conduct from a landlord staff member who had contacted her about her rent account.
   3. The cleaning of the communal areas of the building. She said the estate was not up to standard and the landlord had not been carrying out regular inspections.
   4. She had been requesting that the guttering of the building be cleared out for five years, but the matter remained outstanding.
9. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 January 2021. The landlord informed her that:
   1. It had previously investigated her allegations of noise nuisance and found it to be everyday living noise, it had however spoken with her neighbour about the issue.
   2. It was aware of the condition of the guttering and as a result of the costs involved, it had made the decision to carry out the work as part of planned cyclical maintenance due to start in the next financial year.
   3. The telephone call from and the information provided by the staff member relating to the resident’s rent account was part of a landlord campaign for all of its tenants and was not specifically aimed at the resident.
   4. It noted the resident’s comments on the quality of cleaning in communal areas and apologised. It explained that while it normally carried out regular inspections, this had been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdowns. It further stated that it would look to hold its contractors to account when they had not delivered the expected service.
10. Following an escalation request from the resident, a stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 11 February 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. A staff member had investigated the notice board and signs on the estate on 3 February 2021 and had found no issues.
    2. It was unable to provide the resident with a starting date for the work to guttering due to the ongoing impact on its maintenance services caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
    3. A housing manager undertook an inspection of the cleaning on 3 February 2021. Their report found that that site was “clean and well kept”.
    4. Garden maintenance was suspended as part of the first national lockdown. Its previous contractor undertook a site visit on 4 June 2020 and its new contractor then attended eight times between June 2020 and December 2020. The photographs provided by the contractor following its visits showed that the work was completed to a good standard.
11. In a telephone conversation with this Service on 25 January 2022, the resident advised that the work to the guttering had yet to be completed and the garden maintenance was of poor quality and not undertaken regularly.
12. In a letter sent to this Service on 28 February 2022, the resident confirmed that the landlord had completed the work to the guttering.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. As part of her complaint, the resident has said the issues affecting the guttering have been ongoing for approximately five years. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within six months of the matters arising, Although the resident has stated that she had initially reported the issue in 2019, the available evidence suggests she began to formally complain to the landlord about this on 6 December 2020. Therefore, whilst the historic events add context to the current complaint, The Ombudsman’s investigation has focused on the period from July 2020 onwards which is six months before the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord in December 2020.

Policies and procedures

14. The tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property and any common areas. The resident pays a monthly service charge to the landlord for cleaning and gardening in the communal areas.
15. The landlord’s “grounds maintenance specification for customers and colleagues” document confirms that the grass in the communal areas will be cut on a minimum of 16 occasions between 1 March and 31 October, during which the landlord would also carry out shrub pruning. Additionally, it will carry out 16 summer and two winter visits to clean all hard-landscaped areas.
16. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within ten to 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of guttering repairs

17. Following the resident’s request for the landlord to clear the guttering of the building, the landlord was obligated to carry out an inspection of the guttering, to understand the nature of the repair and any requirement for specialist equipment. The resident should reasonably expect to be informed of the timescales for the completion of the repair within 30 calendar days.
18. The landlord’s repair records confirm that it had raised a repair request on 18 September 2020 for the guttering. Scaffolding would be required to allow for the repair to be carried out, which it had already planned to erect in March 2021, to carry out external decoration work to the building. Therefore, the landlord decided to delay the guttering repair until March 2021 so it could be carried out at the same time as the decoration, using the same scaffolding. It is recognised that this delay added frustration to the resident due to the inconvenience of rainwater falling over the guttering instead of down the waste pipe due to the blockage. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to not consider this to be an emergency repair or a routine repair, and instead consider it to be included as part of the landlord’s planned programme of work. It would not be regarded as an emergency repair, as it was not causing significant damage to the structure of the building and inconvenienced the resident only when it rained. Furthermore, the cost of erecting scaffolding would be passed on to the resident of the building through their service charges, which meant that it was more cost effective to include the repair in the landlord’s planned programme of work so that scaffolding would only need to be erected at the building once rather than twice to carry out the necessary works.
19. However, the landlord failed to communicate the timescale for the completion of the repair, prior to the resident’s stage one complaint on 6 December 2020. This was unfair on the resident, who should not have felt it necessary to raise a complaint in order to be informed of the timescale for the completion of the repair. This added unnecessary time and trouble to the resident.
20. Although the landlord had confirmed that the guttering repair would be carried out in the next financial year, the resident remained dissatisfied and requested the escalation of her complaint on 23 January 2021. To resolve her complaint, she wanted a timescale to give her “a bit of hope” on when the repair would be completed. The landlord explained in its final stage complaint response, on 11 February 2021, that it was unable to provide a date for the repair to be completed as its maintenance programme continued to be impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Although it is recognised that this added frustration to the resident, in view of the understandable impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its services, it was reasonable that the landlord could not commit itself to a specific date for the completion of the repair. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to agree a timescale for providing an update to the resident. It could also have looked at giving an estimated timescale whilst making it clear to the resident that this may be subject to change if unforeseen issues delayed the repairs.
21.  The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests awards of between £50 to £250 where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the landlord’s poor communication did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint as the landlord ultimately agreed to include the gutter repairs to its planned programme of work, but these errors did have an impact on the resident and compensation of £150 is due in view of this.

The standard and frequency of communal grounds maintenance

22. Following the resident’s concerns over the standard and frequency of communal grounds maintenance, the landlord was obliged to carry out an investigation of the communal grounds and respond accordingly to the resident.
23. As set out above, the landlord’s “grounds maintenance specification for customers and colleagues” document confirms that it should attend on 16 occasions per year to carry out communal grounds maintenance on the estate.
24. The landlord acknowledged that its estate inspections had reduced due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Its website also explained that, in respect to repairs, it was prioritising emergency and safety-related work. Nevertheless, it confirmed that it had visited on eight occasions between June and December 2020, to carry out grass cutting, hard-surface weed sprays and shrub pruning, and had seen evidence that the work was completed to a good standard. Additionally, it had carried out a further management inspection on 3 February 2021, which found the site to be clean and well-kept. These were reasonable and proportionate actions for the landlord to take, and demonstrates the landlord was taking appropriate steps to meet its obligations in maintaining the communal gardens, as much as possible during the pandemic. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further with regards to this aspect of the complaint.
25. The resident’s stage one complaint also raised concerns that a contractor had not cleaned up after carrying out work by the communal staircase on 27 November 2020 and was not cleaned until 2 December 2020. The landlord explained, in its stage one complaint response on 15 January 2021, that these services had also been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it was disappointed that it had failed to carry out its duties effectively and confirmed that it had carried out additional training to remind its staff of its obligations. This was a proportionate response from the landlord as it showed that it had taken appropriate steps to prevent a reoccurrence of the issues by speaking to its staff.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s request for guttering repairs.
27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns over the standard and frequency of communal grounds maintenance.

Orders

28. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication in respect to the timescales for which it would either complete the repair or provide her with an update on the progress of the repair.
29. The compensation should be paid within four weeks of the date of this decision.