Home Group Limited (202120126)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120126

Home Group Limited

3 January 2024

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 response to:
1. The resident’s dissatisfaction of the provision and standard of grounds maintenance for the front garden and communal outdoor areas.
2. The resident’s request for the landlord to pave the front garden as a means to remedy her grounds maintenance complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies the property owned by the landlord. It is a 3-bedroom terraced house, under an assured tenancy which began in April 1991. Under the tenancy, the resident is liable to pay service charges in addition to rent. The resident has no reported vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

Between 29 March 2021 to 19 April 2021 the resident called and chased the landlord on 3 occasions. She expressed dissatisfaction that there had been no garden maintenance at the property since October 2020. The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns internally, returned her call, and advised that it would conduct an estate inspection on 21 April 2021. The landlord did not have a record of this inspection taking place.
On 30 April 2021 the resident called the landlord. She said her garden and hedges had not been maintained since March 2020 and there was an invasive weed in her garden. She thought that it was possibly Japanese knot weed. During the conversation the resident said that half of the estate had been maintained but the other half still needed to be done. The landlord recorded discussing the issues with the grounds maintenance contractor who said it would attend on 4 May 2021. There was no evidence that this appointment took place.
The landlord completed an estate inspection on 12 May 2021. It recorded that the grass had not been cut for the whole estate and grass cuttings left in the areas that had. It noted that litter picking had not been done in line with specifications and hedges had not been cut for a while. It documented speaking to the contractor, requested reattendance, informed it that it had received complaints, and said it would monitor performance during the next visit.
On 9 May 2021 the landlord recorded that the grounds maintenance contractor would attend the resident’s property on 19 May 2021. The landlord informed the resident. There was no evidence that this appointment took place.
Following an estate inspection on 12 May 2021 the landlord recorded grounds maintenance issues. This included grass not being maintained, failure to remove rubbish, and hedges and trees that required trimming. It informed the resident that it had arranged to meet the contractor on site to complete another estate inspection on 5 July 2021. It said it would invoke its contract rectification process if the contractor did not improve. The Ombudsman has not seen sight of the landlord’s contract rectification process.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 21 May 2021. The landlord recorded that she disputed the service charge for the grounds maintenance service and said she would withhold payments. Furthermore, she wanted compensation for “all service charges paid.” The landlord recorded explaining that service charges were charged for various services not just grounds maintenance. The enquiry was passed to the relevant Housing Officer (HO) to contact her.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord’s internal communication showed that its complaints team chased the HO assigned to the resident’s complaint. It reminded them of the complaint handling process and that the deadline to acknowledge her complaint had been missed. It asked that action was taken.
On the 27 May 2021 the landlord recorded speaking to the resident about her complaint. It noted her dissatisfaction with grounds maintenance provision to the front of her property and communally within the estate. It was aware that its contractor failed to attend another arranged appointment with the resident. She repeated that she wanted a refund of service charges.
Between 2 June 2021 to 15 June 2021 the resident and landlord discussed the ongoing issue. The resident said that the grounds maintenance contractor had failed to attend two appointments. The landlord chased the contractor and arranged a joint visit on 9 June 2021. The resident said she was upset with gardening not taking place, tree roots were affecting her front garden flagstones, and she now wanted her front garden paved.
On 7, 10, and 14 June 2021 there is evidence that the landlord’s complaints team chased the HO assigned to the resident’s complaint. Internal communication said that there had been no action plan issued and the response was now late. It asked that deadlines were met and an action plan sent to the resident.
Following the visit on 9 June 2021 the landlord recorded that there was no knot weed present. However it raised a job for the gardener to kill tree roots and arranged for its surveyor to assess the resident’s garden.
In the absence of the HO assigned to the resident’s complaint, another member of staff wrote to her on 16 June 2021. The letter outlined an action plan to address her complaint. It said that:
1. It would review the service received from its grounds maintenance contractor following estate inspections.
2. It would raise poor service issues to the appropriate manager to follow the rectification process.
3. It would review the most recent estate inspection records and complete a new inspection to compare standards.
4. It acknowledged that she sought reimbursement of service charges paid for this service. It would review if the service not being received would be reimbursed within the end of year reconciliation process or more immediately.
On 22 June 2021 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She was unhappy with the poor communication and delayed response. The landlord advised she would receive a stage 1 response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 June 2021. It said that:
1. It apologised for its delayed response.
2. It would complete another estate inspection on 5 July 2021 to assess the contractors grounds maintenance work. It invited the resident to attend.
3. Following this inspection, it would start the contract rectification process if the contractor had not improved.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord’s internal communication discussed its late complaint response. It referred to a member of staff being on annual leave followed by a period of sickness. At this time the complaint response had not been reassigned.
Between 28 June 2021 to 2 July 2021 the landlord discussed internally the concerns raised by the resident. It discussed her request for a refund of the grounds maintenance service charge, the ongoing concerns with the contractors performance, and her comments about paving her front garden.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord sent a letter to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It telephoned her on 15 July 2021 to discuss.
The landlord wrote to all affected residents on 23 July 2021. It advised that it was aware of “significant issues” with its grounds maintenance service. It apologised that the service being delivered was below standard. It said that its procurement and contract management teams were working with the contractor to make improvements. An action plan that included the use of additional contractors had been agreed. This would bring the contractor’s schedule of attendance back in line by the end of the summer.
The landlord issued a letter to the resident on 2 July 2021 that broke down various service charges for the 2021 to 2022 financial year. Grounds maintenance was charged at £1.41 per week.
Between 3 August 2021 to 6 August 2021 the landlord discussed internally the performance of its grounds maintenance contractor. It considered the number of residents affected, the annual service charge cost, and the number of appointments missed by the contractor. It considered a refund of £27.41 per resident applicable.
On 9 August 2021 the landlord issued its stage 2 response as the resident had remained dissatisfied with the actions taken to improve grounds maintenance following its stage 1 response. It said that:
1. It sincerely apologised for the service failures that she had experienced with its stage 1 complaint process. It was clear that matters had not been handled as it would expect and feedback had been provided to those involved.
2. It acknowledged that there had been significant issues with grounds maintenance provision delivered by its contractor. It explained that the service had been impacted by Covid-19.
3. It advised that the contractor should be attending to cut grass fortnightly and it would monitor this. It was bringing in additional contractors to assist.
4. Going forward it would complete estate inspections to monitor this every 3 months rather than every 6 months.
5. It had identified missed opportunities for the grounds maintenance rectification process to have been started in April 2021. This delayed matters further for the resident. It offered £75 compensation for this failure.
6. It agreed that the service received from the grounds maintenance contractors had been below standard with visits missed. Therefore a refund of service charge for grounds maintenance had been agreed. This would be calculated and automatically applied to her rent account.
7. It advised that paving the front of her garden would not be something it would fund or undertake as resolution for her complaint. This was an improvement she would need to fund herself and subject to relevant policies and permissions. It would consider her application should she wish to progress this herself.
8. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response was not within its 10 working day timeframe. It said communication and action should have been advanced sooner and work passed to another colleague when someone was absent. It apologised and offered £75 compensation for its complaint handling.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord. She explained that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She reiterated the poor service received, asked that it reconsider paving her garden, declined the offer of compensation, and asked it to send her complaint to the independent complaints panel. The panel contacted her on 27 August 2021.
The independent panel recorded meeting on 5 occasions between 19 August 2021 and 27 September 2021. Its report, findings, and recommendations were sent to the landlord on 30 September 2021. It agreed with the landlord’s stage 2 findings and response. It agreed with the compensation offered, the refund of service charge for grounds maintenance, and the landlord’s decision not to pave the front of her property. It made recommendations for the landlord to:
1. Visit the neighbourhood after 17 September 2021 to see if grounds maintenance is up to date.
2. Ensure it puts in place a clear action plan for grounds maintenance and when this would be completed.
3. Communicate a grounds maintenance action plan to all resident’s on the estate.
4. Ensure staff follow up with the resident to “check and track” the grounds maintenance.
5. Ensure staff were up to date with mandatory complaint handling training.
During November 2021 the landlord discussed internally the ongoing performance concerns and loss in confidence regarding the grounds maintenance contractor. The landlord communicated with colleagues that the panels response should have been given to the resident within 20 working days. This was overdue and it was failing to meet the requirements of the panel.
On 25 November 2021 the landlord issued a letter informing the resident of the panel’s decision to uphold the landlord’s stage 2 response. It shared with her the recommendations made by the panel to improve services and monitor the contractors performance. The resident disputes that the proposed recommendations or improvements took place.

Events following the internal complaints procedure

During a telephone conversation with the resident in December 2023 the resident informed the Housing Ombudsman that, although the contractor had changed, the issue with poor grounds maintenance remains ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s relevant complaint’s, compliments and comments policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2 the resident can expect a response within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be reviewed by an independent complaint panel. The landlord should issue the panel’s response to the resident within 20 working days of receipt of the panel’s decision.
The relevant version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published July 2020 says a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
A summary of the landlord’s landscaping contract states:
1. Full pruning of shrubs and hedges to be carried out annually in the winter.
2. Grass cutting completed at a frequency of 1 cut every fortnight during the period commencing 1 March and ending 31 October and 1 cut every month commencing 1 November and ending 2 February.
3. On only 4 cuts per year shall grass arising be collected and removed off site and disposed of. The timing of this operation for all sites to be any 2 cuts during the month of March and any 2 cuts during the month of April.
4. All grass areas shall be cut to the agreed specification across the entire area of grass identified. No areas are to be left uncut. The contractor shall ensure that grass cutting operations cover the whole of any grass area identified.
5. Following any delay for inclement weather to the grass cutting programme, the contractor shall ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to continue grass cutting to the agreed frequencies in order to meet the required standards.
6. Litter to be removed fortnightly.
The landlord’s grounds maintenance specification document 2019 states that the landlord and contractor will meet each month to discuss performance monitoring, joint site monitoring, customer feedback, and complaints. This list is not exhaustive.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the tenant may make improvements, alterations and additions to the premises provided that the tenant has first obtained the written consent of the landlord.

The resident’s dissatisfaction of the provision and standard of grounds maintenance for the front garden and communal outdoor areas

The resident reports that there was a longstanding issue with poor garden maintenance and that this had been a problem since the Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020. Although in August 2021 the landlord acknowledged the impact lockdown had on its contractor’s resources, the first record of the resident reporting a problem with garden maintenance is dated 29 March 2021. Given there are no complaints before this date, the Service is only able to consider the landlord’s actions from this date.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the service provided in March 2021 and raised further concerns about a potentially invasive weed in April 2021. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord discussed this with her and with the contractor directly and arranged appointments to resolve her concerns. However, there is evidence that at least 2 appointments were missed leaving the resident’s issues unresolved.
In May 2021 there is evidence of further missed appointments by the contractor. The landlord completed its own estate inspection and recorded “issues” with the grounds maintenance service provided. It documented evidence of incomplete works. During this time of year the resident should have expected her grass and communal areas to be cut every fortnight and litter picking to follow the same frequency. There is evidence that this did not take place. This is not appropriate. The landlord’s landscaping contract stipulates the expectations and these were not being met.
The landlord had been put on notice of service failings in March and April 2021. It also identified failures for itself in May 2021. It is therefore unclear why it did not take action to rectify and improve service delivery at this stage. Its grounds maintenance policy states it will meet to discuss performance matters with contractors on a monthly basis. There is no evidence that these performance meetings took place. This was not appropriate. Without the landlord’s monitoring, the contractor continued to miss appointments and failed to deliver a service the resident paid for.
On 9 June 2021 it was appropriate that the landlord and contractor attended the resident’s property to inspect the potential presence of Japanese knot weed. During this appointment it arranged further works to kill tree roots causing damage to flag stones. This was a reasonable step to address an identified issue within the resident’s front garden.
Between June 2021 to August 2021 the landlord advised the resident of an action plan it would take to monitor the contractors performance. The resident disputes that this took place and says communication from the landlord remained poor. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failures handling this matter and offered the resident compensation of £75 in its stage 2 response.
The landlord wrote to all resident’s affected by the grounds maintenance service. It acknowledged that there were “significant issues” and later evidenced calculating a refund of service charge for grounds maintenance for all affected. This was a reasonable step to take and demonstrate that it recognised that the service provided had been poor.
The landlord informed the resident that additional contractors were being sought to ensure the standards were improved and agreed to increase the frequency of its own inspections to monitor performance every 3 months rather than 6. This was a further demonstration that the landlord was responding positively to the reported failings.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation amount offered and refund of a service charge was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports that the provision and standard of grounds maintenance for the front garden and communal outdoor areas was poor.

The resident’s request to pave the front garden as a means to remedy her grounds maintenance complaint

In early June 2021 the resident became frustrated by the lack of action to her complaint. She requested that the landlord pave her garden. She considered this a solution to the matter. Although this request was made after her initial complaint, it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged it within its responses.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that permission is required for any improvements, alterations and additions to the premises. Full consent is required and the resident must obtain all necessary planning permission approvals. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident of this. It explained that this matter was an improvement request, something she would be responsible for, and not a resolution it would fund to improve the performance of the grounds maintenance contractor.
It also recognised that opportunities had been missed in April 2021 to implement its contract monitoring and improvement process known as its ‘contractor rectification process’. It acknowledged that this failure delayed the resident’s matters being addressed. It advised that the appropriate team had been informed to ensure expectations were clear and the process understood. This demonstrated the landlord learning from the outcome.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response reasonable. The tenancy agreement includes information about improvements and whose responsibility this would be. The landlord acknowledged significant issues with its grounds maintenance contractor and explained the actions it would take to resolve matters. It offered compensation for delayed action and agreed to a refund of service charges as a means of redress while it worked to improve service delivery. Therefore there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to pave the front garden as a means to remedy her grounds maintenance complaint.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on three occasions between 29 March 2021 to 19 April 2021. Her calls and subsequent chasing for updates were clear expressions of dissatisfaction. When considering the Code available to all member landlord’s it is unclear why the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint at this stage.
Having repeated her dissatisfaction throughout April and May 2021 the resident made a formal complaint on 21 May 2021. Under the landlord’s complaint, compliment, and comments policy she should have expected a response within 10 working days. The landlord did not send a stage 1 response until 24 June 2021. This was not appropriate as it was 14 working days outside of its complaints policy timescale.
Communication with the resident at stage 1 was generally poor. Some of this failure was caused as workloads had not been reassigned to cover staff annual leave and sickness. This delayed a response being given to the resident. The landlord should have made provision to cover staff absences so the resident was not inconvenienced further. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 response.
Internal communication shows that the landlord was aware that the complaint response was delayed. It chased the colleague assigned the resident’s complaint and reminded them of its policies to respond within a set timeframe. Although this demonstrated the landlord’s intention to resolve the resident’s situation, it indicated a training need. It was appropriate that this was picked up in the landlord’s stage 2 response and those involved spoken to.
Given that the stage 1 response was late and the resident’s dissatisfaction had not been addressed when raised in April 2021, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider an offer of redress for its poor complaint handling at this stage.
The landlord issued a much improved stage 2 response 21 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. Although this was 1 day beyond its 20 working day response timeframe, the Ombudsman does not consider this delay to have caused significant detriment to the resident.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered its sincere apology and acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with the expected level of service during its stage 1 process. It acknowledged there had been a lack of communication throughout, its stage 1 response sent late, and offered compensation of £75 to put things right.
The landlord acknowledged that the grounds maintenance service provided had fallen below the expected standard. It agreed to a refund of service charges for the identified visits missed by the contractor. This was fair in the circumstances and it advised an amount would be calculated and automatically credited to the resident’s rent account. Although there is evidence that a calculation of £27.41 was due to the resident, she informed the Ombudsman that she was uncertain if this was ever paid.
Overall, in light of the actions taken by the landlord, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated improved complaint handling and recognised where things went wrong. It offered redress for its failings and an action plan it would take to improve the performance of its contractor. It demonstrated that it was aware of a significant issue with its contractor by including its contract team to review performance and source additional contractors to put things right.
However, the resident had the opportunity to take her complaint to an independent panel. Upon doing so the landlord was required to provide her with a response within 20 working days of the panel’s report of 30 September 2021. There is evidence that the letter was not sent until 25 November 2021. Therefore this was 20 working days outside of its complaints policy timescale. Furthermore internal communication discussed its late response and its failure to meet the requirements of the panel. This did not demonstrate that the landlord had learned from its stage 1 outcomes.
Although the landlord’s final letter on 25 November 2022 explained that the panel had upheld its stage 2 findings, there was no acknowledgement or apology to recognise the lateness of its response. This was not appropriate as it had acknowledged internally that it was not meeting the requirements of the panel. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s complaint handling would have been reasonable redress but for its delay to finalise the panel response to the resident. Therefore we find service failure and the landlord is ordered to pay a further £75 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the resident’s dissatisfaction of the provision and standard of grounds maintenance for the front garden and communal outdoor areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to pave the front garden as a means to remedy her grounds maintenance complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failures to act on the resident’s reports of service failure when first informed in March/April 2021. It accepted that it could have invoked its contract monitoring process sooner to assess and improve the contractors performance. It created an action plan and offered compensation which also included a refund of the service charge.
The landlord informed the resident’s that any improvement’s to the property would be the responsibility of the resident with the appropriate permissions from the landlord. This is explained in the tenancy agreement. It was not considered a suitable remedy to improve the performance of the grounds maintenance contractor for all of the estate.
The landlord demonstrated poor communication and complaint handling at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. Although there is evidence of improvement at stage 2 and redress offered, it failed to meet the requirements of its independent complaints panel and sent a response 20 working days later than expected. This did not acknowledge this failing or offer an apology.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident further compensation of £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with this order.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident the £75 compensation offered at stage 2 and checks that the £27.41 service charge refund was completed.
If the service charge refund was previously made, the landlord should consider providing the resident with a copy of the rent statement to show how much and on what date the service charge for grounds maintenance was refunded as a result of this complaint.
The landlord should consider providing the resident with information about the current grounds maintenance contract and monitoring thereof. It may be beneficial for her to know the frequency she can expect grounds maintenance works to be completed and how she reports incidents of work not taking place.
The landlord should consider issuing a customer satisfaction survey to the estate affected by the grounds maintenance issues. This will provide an opportunity to assess how things are now and whether further improvements are necessary.
The landlord should consider providing the resident with information about the frequency its staff conduct estate inspections for her estate. It may be beneficial to both parties to include dates of the forthcoming inspections and how she can participate in the inspections should she choose. This will enable all parties to clearly understand how the contractor is performing and give opportunity to clarify what work is undertaken and manage expectations if appropriate.