Abri Group Limited (202119402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119402

Abri Group Limited

27 April 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of the standard of communal cleaning within the resident’s building.
2. the resident’s reports of the standard of grounds maintenance, in particular:
  1. The removal of infested mulch.
  2. The general standard of the grounds maintenance.
  3. The time the landlord took to repair loose paving slabs.
  4. The of lack redress from missed appointments and incomplete work from the contractors.
The Ombudsman also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s above complaints.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder, who lives in a two-bedroom, ground-floor flat and has been a resident of the landlord since June 2008.
In July 2021, the resident reported that the communal cleaning was below its usual standard. The landlord replied in agreement, and told the resident that it had noted the issue in its July 2021 inspection. It had also reported it to the contractor and confirmed it would visit the estate again within the week to carry out another inspection.
In the same month the resident also reported that the grounds maintenance was of poor standard, with dead foliage and weeds still left when the grounds maintenance team attended. The resident included photographic evidence in her emails. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and passed it on to the leasehold officer to action.
On 6 August 2021, the resident asked the landlord for an update about the communal cleaning and expressed her concerns again about the grounds maintenance, with the main issues being:
1. The mulch was infested with animal excrements and on warm days the odour was unbearable.
2. The paving slabs became loose years ago and were a trip hazard.
3. There were weeds and cobwebs and dead foliage left, and the verges had not been cut or maintained for years.
4. When the grounds maintenance team attended, they only maintained the grass by the car park.
The landlord’s customer service team confirmed that it had passed the resident’s photos and comments to the grounds and estates operations manager to investigate. It also confirmed that the grounds maintenance team were aware of her earlier concerns and replanting of the grounds would be assessed in the winter months.
Throughout August 2021, the resident reiterated her concerns about the external communal grounds, particularly raising concerns about the infested mulch and the dead foliage that she previously reported to the landlord. The customer service team responded each time stating it would pass on her reports to the leasehold officer and/or the grounds maintenance team to action. At times the landlord advised that the maintenance team would action her concerns on their next visit to the estate.
In the same month the resident confirmed that the standard of the internal communal cleaning had not improved, and at times the contractor would not attend at all. The landlord agreed with the resident, expressed its concerns and confirmed it would request a refund for the missed appointments from the contractor.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord updated the resident about the communal cleaning. It said that the contractor apologised for the decreased standard of the cleaning which was due to staff shortages, they would credit the landlord’s accounts for the missed appointments up until 6 September 2021, and would be carrying out a site audit. The landlord added that it would therefore expect to see some improvement.
On 7 September 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the cleaning had not improved despite the site audit by the contractor and, within the same month, she stated several times that the standard of the internal communal cleaning had not improved and it appeared that the contractors had not turned up for all of the scheduled dates, and when they did turn up, they only completed the minimum of their tasks.
The landlord responded each time and confirmed that it had contacted the contractor again as it could see by the pictures the resident provided that the standard of cleaning had not improved. It informed the resident that as it had a contract with the cleaners, it was unable to fill the position with another contractor.
It advised the resident that it would continue to chase the cleaners to attend and to get the communal cleaning back to a good standard. The landlord asked the resident to keep it informed as it was only able to visit the site once a month and it wanted to contact the contractors as soon as possible when they did not attend.
On 16 September 2021, the resident made a formal complaint, stating that although the leasehold officer and the grounds maintenance officer had been responsive, the communal cleaning and the grounds maintenance remained below standard. Her concerns were:
1. The standard of the maintenance of the grounds and communal areas were below standard and were not value for money against the service charges she paid for both services.
  1. In August, they had only received one internal communal clean, which was below expected standard.
2. She requested a review of the service charges she had paid for the previous 12 years, as the landlord only acted on issues when she raised them as a complaint.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord’s complaint officer spoke to the resident about her complaint and confirmed with the relevant staff that her concerns were:
1. The paving slabs to the entrance of the building were loose and were a trip hazard.
2. The bushes were overgrown and blocking the gas meters.
3. The trees and bushes were overgrown and were starting to block the ground floor windows.
4. General grounds maintenance was not being done.
On the same day, the complaint officer updated the resident and explained that the leasehold officer and the contractor agreed that the standard of cleaning had been poor of late, they were working together to improve the services and the leasehold officer would inspect the loose pathway slabs within the next few weeks.
The next day, the resident asked the landlord’s complaint officer to also confirm:
1. The number of grounds maintenance visits her estate was supposed to receive each year and asked whether the residents could be made aware of the scheduled visits.
2. How long it would take to bring the grounds back to a “decent” standard and she requested that the residents were kept updated.
3. Whether the residents were going to be credited for the missed work, as the grass area on the estate had been untouched for at least three months.
On 24 September 2021, the grounds maintenance team cut back and tidied the overgrown bushes, however the resident was concerned that there were other areas that were not attended to. The litter on the grounds had not been removed, the infested mulch was still there, the side of the building still had a lot of foliage and trees of the boundary wall were overgrown, and as some trees were leaning she wanted to know if they were safe.
The landlord asked the resident to meet its grounds maintenance officer on 4 October 2021 for a walkabout of the grounds so it could identify her concerns. She replied that she was unable to attend due to work commitments
On 30 September 2021, the landlord’s complaint officer updated the resident stating:
1. The grounds maintenance officer would be attending her estate grounds on 4 October 2021 to investigate and identify any ground maintenance that needed to be done.
2. The leasehold officer would be completing his monthly block inspection shortly and he would look at the issues the resident had raised.
3. A job had been raised to inspect and measure the concrete slabs to see what needed to be done to repair them, although it was unable to provide a date when it would be done.
4. The service charge for the year was estimated in March 2021 for the upcoming 12 months, based upon the previous 12 months site visits, and if the grounds maintenance team had not attended the site or the work had been below standard then this would reflect as a credit on the next year’s bill.
The resident continued to raise her concerns throughout October 2021, in particular:
1. The landlord did not give her an action plan of what was going to be done and how it would bring the standard back to the internal and external areas.
2. It was unclear how she would be refunded, as she already paid for her service charge bill for the year.
3. She was still waiting for information around how many visits should the grounds maintenance team make per year.
4. Cleaning was still below standard and the cleaners were not always attending when they should She asked if alternative arrangements could take place, such as the residents taking on the responsibility of the cleaning.
5. The mulch was still infested, and the issues she reported previously about the grounds maintenance still had not been addressed.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had extended its response deadline by 10 working days.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response, upholding the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. The grounds maintenance was below standard due to a combination of staff leaving and weather conditions which had created a back log of work. The team did attend and, at that point of the year, would be focusing on hedgerows and shrubbery. The grounds maintenance team did not carry out work on all areas at each site visit, as they worked on a cyclical basis. It also confirmed that the team would prioritise the areas that the resident raised as a concern.
2. It apologised for the standard of the communal cleaning, and confirmed that the leasehold officer would arrange a log sheet to record any missed cleans, which would be credited back to the residents’ service charge account when the actual bill was calculated in 2022.
3. The leasehold officer would be sending out a consultation letter to all residents to ask if they wanted the cleaning to remain with the current contractor, or if they wanted to take on cleaning themselves.
4. It asked the resident to continue to report the cleaners’ missed attendance or substandard cleans so it could report back to the contractor.
5. It confirmed that its grounds maintenance officer attended on 4 October and had assessed the issue with the trees. As a result it would be arranging a joint site visit with its contractors to discuss works that needed to be done with timescales.
6. It confirmed that the leasehold officer raised a repair job for the loose pathway to be fixed within 90 days, in line with its service level agreement
On 14 October 2021, resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure, stating:
1. She had made several complaints over the years and each time the landlord only gave short term solutions to long-term problems and only completed work when she made a complaint.
2. The grounds maintenance continued to be poor which meant that she had to remove dead animals and excrement, which affected her mental health. She was still yet to receive the maintenance plan/schedule or information about any refunds/ adjustments for the work that had not been done over the years.
3. The grounds were an eyesore, which impacted on peoples’ moods and well-being.
4. There was a poster which was displayed in the communal area stating there would be 20 grounds maintenance visits per year, which had never happened since she lived there.
5. The landlord’s stage one response was vague, did not address any of her issues and did not present her with a long term plan, with timeframes.
The landlord confirmed that it would try and resolve her stage two complaint within 20 working days and it would be assigned to a senior colleague or considered by a customer panel.
On 20 October 2021, the resident requested to add photographic evidence to her stage two complaint, stating that the side of the building had not been maintained for 13 years, and there were other outstanding works that she raised over 6 months ago which were not addressed, including the leaning tree that she did not know was safe or not. The landlord confirmed that it had added the additional information and photos to the complaint.
On 29 October 2021, the resident asked for the following to be addressed as part of her complaint:
1. The landlord to confirm when the loose pathway slabs were going to be completed as they were a health and safety risk.
2. She was told that the leaning tree inspection had taken place on 28 April 2021, 2 June 2021, and the 3 September 2021. The landlord stated each time that it would complete the relevant work, but no work was ever completed, and the landlord’s stage one complaint stated that it would carry out another tree inspection.
3. She was told that the tree suckers blocking all the light and the bindweed covering the trees would be tidied up and this was not completed which she reported on the same dates as above. The foliage at the side of the building had not been attended to since July 2018. She added that she was able to provide the landlord with photographic evidence over the same period and reported those issues on 28 April 2021, 2 June 2021, and 3 September 2021, but no action was taken.
4. The mulch by the front door which was infested with animal droppings was reported on 28 April 2021, 2 June 2021, and the 3 September 2021 and no action had been taken.
5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response mentioned that the grounds maintenance would be done on a cyclical basis, but no grounds maintenance had been done by the side of the building for many years and there was no refund in her service charges to redress that.
On 11 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said that its stage two response was due on the 10 November, however she had not received this. She reiterated that there were still outstanding issues, such as the leaning trees and grounds maintenance at the side of the property.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and extended its response deadline to 25 November 2021. The resident expressed her frustration that she was only contacted by the landlord when she contacted it first and wanted “actual” action to “finally” get the service that she and other residents paid for.
On 12 November 2021, the landlord emailed its cleaning contractor and said that although the cleaning had improved there were still areas that had not been cleaned which it had noted from previous visits.
On 18 November 2021, the landlord’s internal communication stated that it had kept records for both grounds maintenance and cleaning but the records would not go as far back as 12 years. It had issued refunds for the three months that the grounds maintenance team did not attend over the covid lockdown, and there were plans to change the cleaning service the following summer. It had also changed the team that carried out the grounds maintenance on the site.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it would be extending its stage two response date to 1 December 2021 because it wanted to confidently send the resident its resolution letter with all the finalised details.
On 1 December 2021, the landlord told the resident that it had instructed its contractor to inspect and measure the concrete slabs to see what needed to be done to repair them.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, stating:
1. It was confident that changes to its grounds maintenance team would ensure its customers would receive a high standard service.
2. The leasehold officer would continue to monitor the cleaning contractor to ensure they provided a high standard service.
3. It was important for residents to inform it when cleaning either had not taken place or had not been to a good standard, so it could instruct its contractor to reattend and adjust the service charge bill accordingly.
4. The service charge bill the resident had received for 2021 was an estimated bill, based on the previous year’s charges, and when the actual service charge bill is calculated at the end of the financial year, it would show the adjustments made for the missed services and a credit would be applied to her account.
5. Any further missed appointments would be tracked and credited to the accounts accordingly. It however, would be unable to review the service charges from the last 12 years, as its policy stated that it did not review complaint issues that occurred over six months ago. It had also confirmed that in the event that this was raised with a tribunal the landlord would not be expected to provide this amount of detail.
6. The leasehold officer would be arranging a consultation letter to all residents to ask if they wanted to continue with the current cleaning contractor, or if they would like to take on the cleaning in the block themselves.
7. It reiterated its stage one response and added as part of its response the leasehold officer visited the communal areas more than the usual monthly inspections, for a period of time, to inspect the standard of cleaning.
In December 2021, the resident and landlord continued to discuss the resident’s concerns as follows:
1. The landlord confirmed that some of the banks areas did not belong to it to maintain, but it would make further enquiries and as these would be considered woodland areas they would be maintained once every 3-4 years.
2. The resident contacted the landlord again, as the infested mulch had not been removed and it had an “unbearable” smell.
3. The landlord logged another issue with the contractor stating that a resident had informed it that the cleaning had not been done for a couple of weeks, and asked whether that was the case, and continued to send similar logs to the contractor in early 2022.
4. The landlord advised the resident that the grounds maintenance cyclical programme was every 3-4 weeks and it was unable to provide the resident specific dates as to when the team would visit as the work was dependent on the weather.
In July 2022, the cleaning contractor informed the landlord that the cleaners were scheduled to clean every fortnight, which meant that the contractors should have attended 26 times between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022. It had missed seven cleans, had refunded three of those cleans and was due to refund a further four.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord contacted the resident after its final response and offered the resident £150 for the service failures the resident experienced during its stage two complaint process.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s customer relations policy stated that it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and would contact its resident if it required more time. Although, all stage one complaints would be handled within 20 working days. All Stage two complaints would be reviewed and resolved within 20 working days.
The Estate Management policy stated that the landlord:
1. Carried out quarterly estate inspections of the external communal areas to ensure that they were clear of any hazards and were clean, tidy and well maintained. Concerns identified on land not belonging to the landlord would be directed to the appropriate party.
2. Where practical, the landlord’s surveyor would complete the slips, trips and falls inspection sheet and raise all the relevant jobs using the slip, trip and fall hazard identification form.
3. The landlord would determine land ownership, and if the land that a tree is situated on, or overhangs, is the landlord’s land, an inspection would be carried out within 21 days, unless the request is urgent.
The Neighbourhood Policy stated:
1. We will complete regular inspections of our neighbourhoods to ensure effective services are being provided, reviewing all areas including the gardens, garage sites, parking areas, pathways and communal areas, ensuring the required standards are being maintained and any health and safety concerns are reported and promptly resolved.
The Service charges policy stated:
1. Queries about the service level provided (quality of work carried out/work not carried out/frequency of work carried out/estate issues etc.) are investigated by the relevant Officer in the Housing directorate.
2. Challenges or enquiries for costs more than three years old will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If the Leaseholder has no reason for the delay in making their enquiry and has previously unproved vexatious challenges, the Landlord will advise the route to challenge should be made by an application to the First Tier Tribunal.
The landlord’s ‘Putting things right policy’ stated that a resident is inconvenienced where they had to go out of their way or make a particular effort to do something they should not have had to, and/or where they have had to spend time unnecessarily.

Handling of the resident’s reports of the lack of and standard of the communal cleaning

The landlord and the resident both agreed that the communal cleaning fell below expected standard. Initially, the landlord contacted its contractor within reasonable time frames based on its inspections and the resident’s feedback. It appropriately asked the contractors to rectify the poor standard of cleans and/or requested a refund of the missed attendance.
The landlord also ensured that it responded to the resident in a timely manner and encouraged her to report her concerns, so it could act on her information as soon as possible.
However, as the problems persisted, the landlord failed to implement a robust monitoring plan that placed the burden on the contractor to provide timely evidence to demonstrate that it fulfilled its obligations under its contractual agreement with the landlord. As a result, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord unreasonably relied on the resident to consistently report the issues so that it could challenge the contractors’ performance.
Whilst the Ombudsman encourages landlords to work alongside their residents to improve services, it is important that they make a distinction between what is reasonable for the resident and what it should ultimately do as the landlord. In this case, the landlord was not mindful that it could have placed unnecessary distress and inconvenience on to the resident by asking her to continue to report any issues with the contractor in place of its own monitoring.
Although the landlord stated that it had increased its inspections of the estate in its stage two response the landlord did not provide this service evidence that it did so. This is covered in more detail later in this report.
The landlord stated that it was unable to replace the contractor, as it was under contract, however it advised the resident that she and her neighbours would be able to take on the cleaning themselves, which suggests that there may have been alternative options that the landlord did not fully look into.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of cleaning. As stated above, it failed to effectively monitor the contractors’ performance. It is also evident that the issues continued past the landlord’s final response, and, without a robust monitoring plan in place, the landlord continued to rely on the resident to report issues.

Handling of grounds maintenance

Loose Paving

The resident reported loose paving, which she described as a trip hazard to the landlord in August 2021. The landlord inspected the paving weeks later in September 2021, and a further inspection was carried out by the landlord’s contractor in December 2021. The landlord stated that the paving was fixed in February 2022. Overall it took six months for the paving to be fixed from the time the resident reported it.
The length of time it took the landlord to complete this work was unreasonable. It was significantly over the 90 days repair deadline the landlord stated in its stage one response and 30 calendar days stated in its responsive repairs policy for routine repair.
Moreover, the landlord did not provide this Service with evidence that it took into consideration that the loose paving may have presented as a health and safety risk. It did not risk assess the paving in accordance with its policy which stated that it would carry out risk assessment via its ‘slips, trips and falls’ inspection sheet and raise all the relevant jobs using the ‘slip, trip and fall’ hazard identification form.
The Ombudsman reviewed the monthly fire risk assessments which prompted the landlord to inspect the grounds paths for trips and hazards. The completed assessments however do not feature any observations that the landlord had identified that the paving was loose.

Infested Mulch

The resident reported that the mulch by the communal front door was infested in August 2021 and continued to report it several times throughout the complaint process and reported it again in January 2022. The landlord’s delay in resolving the issue is unreasonable, and the resident incurred time and trouble chasing it to rectify the issue.

General Grounds Maintenance

The landlord did not provide the regular estate inspection sheets relating to the timeframe of the complaint as requested by the Ombudsman.
The resident reported many times in the complaint process that the grounds were not being maintained, including specific areas which were not being attended to by the grounds maintenance team, and although the landlord agreed, it failed to implement and/or demonstrate how its new team would bring the grounds back in line with its standard.
The landlord also failed to provide the resident with the maintenance schedule which she requested several times throughout the complaint process. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that the grounds maintenance schedule is seasonal and weather dependent, it is reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with this information.
Providing such information allows for transparency and accountability for a landlord and its contractors. It also allows residents to give informed feedback about services that they are paying for. Therefore the landlord should provide the resident with the maintenance schedule and specifications for the grounds maintenance.

Overall, the Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of grounds maintenance. It failed to provide the resident with maintenance specification and standards and it failed to demonstrate that it had an appropriate action plan to bring grounds maintenance back to standards. It also failed to demonstrate that it had carried out regular estate inspections in line with its policy and the resident’s reports of paving and infested mulch took too long to be addressed.

Complaint Handling

The Ombudsman notes that there were high volumes of correspondence between the resident and the landlord throughout the complaint process, which at times the landlord failed to keep track of. As a result the landlord failed to respond to some of the resident’s queries either at all or in a timely manner. For example, on 21 September 2021 the resident asked several questions of the landlord, which it failed to answer in either of its complaint responses.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code states that if residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response as long as they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued, which the landlord failed to do as stated above.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code also states that a landlord must set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. It should also manage the resident’s expectations of what information it has accepted as part of the complaint. If the landlord followed a template or action plan, this may have reduced the failures to respond to the resident as stated above.

Stage one response

The landlord upheld the resident’s stage one complaint, however it did not clearly demonstrate what it was going to do to put things right. It gave a vague explanation that the grounds maintenance team worked on a cyclical basis and that they visited the estate. Considering the heart of the resident’s complaint was around her concerns that the landlord failed to implement long term solutions and action, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate to her that it had a clear action plan on how it would bring the grounds back to standard, which would be reasonable for it to issue.
It also failed to clearly explain how it would refund the resident’s service charges in respect of the lack of grounds maintenance as it referred specifically to “missed cleans” when it referred to the refund. It also failed to answer the resident’s request to review the service charges over the last 12 years.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with the grounds maintenance specification and schedule and an explanation on how it would put things right with reasonable timeframes. If the landlord provided the information and answered the resident’s questions clearly, it would have demonstrated that it had listened, understood her complaint, and was taking reasonable steps to put things right.
The landlord’s response to the cleaning concerns was inadequate, whilst it stated that it had arranged for a log sheet for it to record any missed appointments, which partially put things right, it did not expand on how it would monitor its contractors’ future performance.
Furthermore, the stage one complaint response placed the burden of reporting missed appointments on the resident. As stated earlier in the report, whilst the Ombudsman encourages landlords to work closely with residents on service delivery, it did not take into consideration the distress and inconvenience it may have placed on the resident.

Stage two response

The landlord’s stage two response failed to address the resident’s reasons for her escalation request, which she highlighted in October 2021. It explained that it had increased its inspections of the communal building for a period of time, which was not included in its stage one response, nor did it specify the time period, the frequency of the visits, nor did it explain what it had found from the increased visits up to the point it had issued the stage two response.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord explained how the missed appointments for the cleans would be refunded in its service charge, but it gave incorrect information about how it could review the service charges.
Whilst it may not have been reasonable to review the service charges from the last 12 years as requested by the resident, her request should have triggered the landlord’s service charge review process in line with its policy, which stated that any challenges or enquiries for costs more than three years old would be reviewed on a case by case basis. The landlord failed to discuss the resident’s request with her, and therefore missed an opportunity to assess her request fully, provide her with its decision and signpost her to the first tier tribunal, if that was relevant. It also failed to acknowledge that it did not respond to this in its stage one response.
Although it confirmed that it had added the resident’s concerns about the trees on the estate to its stage two response, the landlord failed to address this in its stage two response.
Overall the landlord failed to carry out the following at stage two of its complaints procedure:
1. Provide the resident with a grounds maintenance specification and schedule.
2. Provide the resident with an action plan or detail on how it would monitor the grounds maintenance team and the cleaning contractor.
3. Acknowledge the time and trouble incurred by the resident when she chased the landlord for updates and reported issues about the grounds maintenance and the cleaning contractor and the impact it may have had on her.
4. Discuss the resident’s review request of her service charges and gave incorrect information which went against its service charge policy.
5. Did not acknowledge that it had not sent a consultation letter about the communal cleaning to the residents two months after it said it would in its stage one response.
Taken altogether these failings mean that, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Whilst the landlord offered the resident £150 for the service failures she experienced during the stage two complaint process, the redress did not go far enough to put things right.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident referred to issues with her building’s guttering during the complaint process. The landlord created a separate complaint process for this, which was appropriate to do in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of the standard of communal cleaning within the resident’s building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of the standard of grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord, although it initially started to monitor the cleaners performance, it failed to put a robust monitoring performance action plan in place with the contractor to monitor its performance going forward. It also failed to demonstrate that it carried out additional inspections to monitor the contractors’ performance and relied on the resident to report on the contractors’ poor performance without taking into consideration the time and trouble she may have incurred doing so.
The landlord confirmed that the grounds maintenance had fallen behind expected standards and, although it stated that it had changed the team, it failed to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking specific action to bring the estate back into a reasonable standard. It failed to address the infested mulch and loose paving slabs in a timely manner, and did not provide the resident with the grounds maintenance schedule. These accumulative failings by the landlord meant that the resident incurred distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints thoroughly, and failed to see the crux of the resident’s complaint, which was the landlord’s inaction. It did not give specific answers about the service charges regarding the grounds maintenance, and did not adequately answer the resident’s review request of her service charges. It failed to acknowledge the length of time it had taken to resolve issues such as the infested mulch and paving slabs and did give clear details that would give confidence to the resident that it would be resolving her concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £550 which comprises of:
1. £50 in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of the communal cleaning.
2. £250 in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of the grounds maintenance.
3. £250 in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints.
Provide the resident a copy of the grounds maintenance specification and schedule specific for her estate, within four weeks of the issue of this report and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman.
Provide this service and the resident an action plan to demonstrate how the landlord is proactively ensuring that the communal cleaning is being monitored and any issues acted upon in a timely manner, without having to rely on the resident reports.
Contact the resident to see if there are any outstanding issues related to this complaint, confirm in writing its discussion and action plan with timescales and an agreed contact schedule with the resident within four weeks of the issue of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence.
Confirm with the resident if she would still like her service charges to be reviewed in line with its service charge policy, signpost her to the first tier tribunal if appropriate and provide the Ombudsman evidence that it has done so within four weeks of the issue of this report.