Platform Housing Group Limited (202116253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116253

Platform Housing Limited

17 February 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 the resident’s concerns regarding grounds maintenance and his request for a refund of the grounds maintenance service charge.

Background

The property is a two-bedroom bungalow and the resident has an assured tenancy, which started on 17 July 2006. The property has a communal shrub bed directly in front of it, which the landlord is responsible for maintaining. The bed contains a variety of shrub species and is one of several green areas on the estate where the property is located.
On 5 April 2010, there was a variation of the tenancy agreement to replace the variable service charge with a fixed charge. As a result, the resident pays a fixed weekly service charge for grounds maintenance. The grounds maintenance is carried out by a contractor and covers tasks such as grass cutting, shrub pruning and weedkilling.
The resident has raised concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance prior to 2020. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the resident made a formal complaint in previous years about the grounds maintenance service. The Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Also, complaints need to be raised within a reasonable timescale (usually within six months of the events occurring). This investigation therefore focuses on events that took place from 2020 onwards as these were the focus of the landlord’s formal complaints procedure in 2021.

Summary of events

On 18 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about grounds maintenance. The resident reported that the grounds maintenance contractor had been on site, but had not carried out any work to the shrub bed in front of the property. The resident stated that the shrubs were overgrown and were last maintained in 2019. On the same day, the contractor informed the landlord and resident that work to the shrub bed was scheduled to be done the following day.
The resident again contacted the landlord on 30 August 2020 to say that the grounds maintenance to the shrub bed had not been done.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 1 June 2021 to complain about the maintenance of the shrub bed directly in front of the property. The resident also phoned the landlord on 3 June 2021 to complain about the increase in the grounds maintenance service charge. He reported that grounds maintenance was not being carried out and consequently the shrub bed was in “a poor state”.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord and contractor met with the resident at the property and carried out some weed spraying to the shrub bed while on site. The landlord also agreed during the visit that some of the dead shrubs would be replaced and that pruning was scheduled to be done the following week.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 June 2021 with its stage one complaint response, in which it:
1. Apologised for the lack of grounds maintenance received and partially upheld the complaint;
2. Stated that the shrubs had last been pruned in August 2020;
3. Reported that the lockdown restrictions and the wet weather had impacted on the contractor’s ability to maintain the shrub bed as much as it would have liked, and the landlord was working with the contractor to resolve the issues;
4. Stated that during the landlord and contractor’s visit on 9 June 2021, it was found that the shrub borders “were full of weeds”, but most of the shrubs themselves were “relatively tidy with some new growth that requires pruning”;
5. Confirmed that during the visit on 9 June 2021, an operative had sprayed the weeds around the shrub borders;
6. Agreed with the resident during the visit that some of the shrubs would be removed and replaced later in the year;
7. Clarified that the grounds maintenance service charge was not based on a charge per visit by the contractor and that the charge covered the total grounds maintenance service during the year;
8. Confirmed that it would send a hamper to the resident to recognise the issues he had faced.
The resident replied on 17 June 2021, in which he:
1. Stated that the shrub bed had not been maintained in August 2020 and was not maintained until 14 June 2021;
2. Said the landlord was in breach of its contract with the resident as he had paid the required service charge but the shrub bed had not been maintained to the agreed standard;
3. Questioned why the shrubs were not pruned at the same time as the grass was cut;
4. Confirmed that he would expect a complete refund of one year’s service charge and a substantial refund for past years when the service was not completed to a reasonable standard;
5. Confirmed that the weeds and dead shrubs had been removed from the shrub bed and the shrubs had now been cut to a reasonable height;
6. Noted that he had not yet received a letter that had been requested from the landlord confirming that the agreed planting to the shrub bed would occur and it would be maintained more regularly;
7. Reiterated that compensation should be offered to him and asked for the complaint to be escalated.
Between 20 June 2021 and 25 June 2021, the resident and landlord exchanged emails, in which the resident repeated that no work was done in 2020, and the landlord confirmed the outcome of the onsite meeting of 9 June 2021. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2021 acknowledging receipt of the hamper and said he was not satisfied with the gesture. The resident wrote again on 27 July 2021 to say that in his view the landlord had broken the contract by not maintaining the shrub bed to a reasonable standard. He added that the area was an eyesore and that he was upset by the condition of the shrub bed.
The landlord sent its stage two (final review) complaint response on 6 August 2021, in which it stated:
1. The requirements of the service specification were for shrub areas to be maintained and pruned twice yearly. However, due to covid restrictions, a second visit was not carried out in autumn 2020;
2. Despite the covid restrictions, the contractor had carried out all tasks set out in the service specification, including grass cutting and weeding;
3. In previous years the landlord had addressed “minor issues” with the contractor during site visits and regular contractor meetings;
4. The contractor had delivered a service in line with the specification and “continues to address minor failings in line with the contract expectations”;
5. The resident had recently agreed that the shrub area should be replaced with grass;
6. The cost of the grounds maintenance for the estate on which the property is situated was shared equally across all residents of the estate;
7. Residents were consulted via the notice of variation about the introduction of the fixed service charge;
8. The landlord acknowledged that there had been some failings in the quality of the service provided in 2020, however, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to address these with the contractor;
9. As stated in the landlord’s stage one reply, a hamper had been sent to the resident to recognise that he was directly affected by the “overgrown shrub garden” immediately outside his window.

Post the final complaint letter

In September 2021, the landlord and the resident exchanged emails about the removal of the shrubs and relaying the area with grass. The landlord notified the resident that the work had been delayed and would be done on 26 October 2021.
A photograph of the shrub bed taken in November 2021 shows that the shrubs had been removed and grass had been laid over the area.
On 28 March 2022, the contractor wrote to the landlord to confirm:
1. The contractor was not at work in April and into May 2020 because of covid restrictions;
2. When the contractor returned to work, it introduced a restriction of one operative per van due to covid, and this caused a delay in completing work.

Assessment and findings

The grounds maintenance service specification

Section 16 of the landlord’s Estate Services Specification states that in relation to shrub beds, the purpose of pruning “is to build a strong framework keeping shrubs healthy and vigorous, maintaining the shape and balance, ensuring the maximum amount of flowering and/or foliage wood is produced and that the shrubs are kept so that they do not create a nuisance or danger”.
Section 27 of the specification includes the following requirements:
1. During the summer months (April-October) shrub pruning will be carried out “once or twice per year, depending on species”;
2. During the winter months (November-March) shrub pruning will be carried out “as required”.
3. Weed control is carried out “as required, generally every visit”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 August 2021 and confirmed that “the service specification for [the property] confirms that all shrub areas will be maintained and pruned twice yearly”.

Assessment

The evidence submitted to this Service indicates that no pruning of the shrubs occurred during 2020. The contractor confirmed to the landlord on 28 March 2022 that it was not at work during April and part of May 2020 due to covid and the landlord confirmed in its final review letter that the scheduled visit in autumn 2020 did not take place. Therefore, during 2020 the landlord (through its contractor) did not meet the grounds maintenance contract specification to prune the shrub bed twice a year. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to state that covid had been a factor, particularly in relation to the first scheduled visit that had been due to take place in spring 2020. On 16 March 2020, the Government advised people to work from home and avoid contact with others, and from 26 March 2020, the ‘lockdown regulations’ came into effect, which meant that landlords were only dealing with urgent health and safety issues and emergency repairs.
In relation to the second scheduled visit in autumn 2020, the landlord stated in its final review letter that this did not take place again due to covid restrictions and the contractor confirmed that it had introduced restrictions so that only one operative could travel in each van. The contractor advised the landlord that the restrictions caused a delay in completing its work. On 1 June 2020, the Government issued guidance to social landlords to say that two-metre distancing should be followed, and from 4 July 2020 this was changed to ‘one-metre plus’ distancing where two metres was not viable. The need for the contractor to set a limit of one person per van was therefore consistent with the Government guidance for social distancing.
This Service accepts that the covid restrictions caused disruption to the schedule. However, the landlord’s communication log shows that the resident phoned the landlord on 18 August 2020 to express concern that the contractor was onsite carrying out other grounds maintenance, but had not carried out work to the shrub bed in front of the property. The log shows that the contractor contacted the landlord and the resident to say that they were expecting to prune the shrubs on the following day. The communication log then shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 30 August 2020 to report that work had still not been carried out to the shrub bed. This indicates that the contractor had not carried out the maintenance to the shrub bed as promised, and according to the evidence seen by this Service, neither the landlord or contractor contacted the resident to apologise and explain why this had not occurred; this was therefore unreasonable.
The next communication seen by this Service between the landlord and resident was on 1 June 2021 when the resident submitted a formal complaint, in which he stated that work was not done to the shrub bed, despite the resident paying a service charge for grounds maintenance. The landlord’s response letter stated that the shrub pruning had taken place in August 2020 and that the next scheduled visit was in June 2021. The landlord’s position was later corrected in its final review letter, in which it confirmed that the shrubs had not been pruned in August 2020. Therefore, the landlord accepted that the agreed service had not been provided, it explained that this was due to the covid restrictions and apologised for the “failings” in 2020. The landlord also confirmed that the resident had been sent a hamper to recognise that the resident had been “directly affected by the overgrown shrub garden”, and that the landlord had agreed with the resident that the shrub garden would be replaced with grass.
There was a shortfall in the provision of the grounds maintenance service during 2020 (partly due to covid) and a communication failure on the part of the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this during the complaints process and took the following steps to put things right following receipt of the resident’s stage one complaint:
1. The landlord investigated the resident’s report of a lack of grounds maintenance by requesting an explanation from the contractor as to why it had not carried out the maintenance of the shrub bed in 2020 (even though the formal complaint was submitted almost ten months after the event);
2. When the landlord received the information from the contractor, it acknowledged that the shrub bed had not been maintained and apologised to the resident for this;
3. The landlord arranged a site meeting, which it attended with the contractor and the resident in order to resolve the dispute;
4. The landlord carried out weeding of the shrub bed during the site meeting and pruning was done after the meeting took place;
5. Although it was under no contractual obligation to do so, the landlord agreed with the resident that it would replace the shrubs with grass. This work was completed in November 2021 and therefore the landlord took action to ensure the same problem would not reoccur;
6. The landlord gave the resident a food hamper as a gesture to recognise the impact of the lack of maintenance to the shrub bed on the resident.
The landlord’s redress in the form of a hamper was in line with its compensation policy, which stated: “Occasionally circumstances will arise when it is appropriate to provide some form of remedy or redress to customers and applicants…This can take the form of: an apology, providing a service [or]…a small gift…”.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the shortcomings, learn from the complaint and offer redress. In doing so, the landlord has offered appropriate redress to resolve the complaint and therefore has acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
As the landlord did not maintain the shrubs immediately outside the property during 2020 after it had promised to do so, and did not communicate adequately with the resident, it was understandable for the resident to request a refund in relation to the grounds maintenance service charge. However, the landlord has confirmed that the service charge covers grounds maintenance for the estate as a whole, which includes keeping areas weed-free and maintaining communal shrub beds and grassed areas. The landlord has been able to evidence that it did carry out grounds maintenance work on the estate during 2020, for example, grass cutting, weedkilling and some shrub bed pruning (albeit not to the shrub bed immediately outside the property) and during the early part of the year the contractor had to adhere to the covid restrictions. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse the request for a refund of the grounds maintenance service charge.
The resident has quoted the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to his request for a refund. However, the provisions relating to service charges in the Act only cover variable service charges and therefore as the resident pays a fixed service charge, the provisions do not apply.
Taking into account the above factors, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer of the hamper was proportionate compensation for the shortfalls in the service and for not following up the resident’s correspondence sent during August 2020.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding grounds maintenance and his request for a refund of the grounds maintenance service charge.

Reasons

Although the landlord did not maintain the shrub bed in 2020 and did not communicate adequately with the resident, it acknowledged its failings, apologised, offered redress to the resident and, by replacing the shrubs with grass, it took action to ensure the same problem would not arise in the future.