Anchor Hanover Group (202105451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105451

Anchor Hanover Group

20 November 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding:
1. The quality of garden maintenance carried out at the property
2. The level of service charge.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The level of service charge.

In line with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. It is understood that the resident’s complaint concerns the information he was provided about the service charges, and the level of the service charge. In accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated.
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). The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Background and summary of events

Background and the landlord’s obligations

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the property is a flat within a block of flats. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the communal garden serving the block of flats, which the residents of the building pay a service charge towards under the terms of their tenancy agreements. The resident’s tenancy agreement explains how the services can be increased, decreased, added to, or removed and how the service charge and other charges will be reviewed.
The garden maintenance requirements for 2019 to 2020 specified that all areas within the grounds and forming part of the premises would be kept clear of obstruction to vehicular access, pedestrian use and be free from debris, vegetation not planted, oil spills or other extraneous matter. The gardener or contractor would visit two times per month between March to November and one time per month between December and February. The requirements included:
1. All trees, shrubs, and other obstructions to be trimmed before grass cutting. Two cuts per month to grassed areas would be completed during April to November and one cut per month for the rest of the year
2. Fork over all beds and borders, removing weeds at monthly intervals. Trim all plants and shrubs where necessary when tending beds and borders, to ensure that they did not overhang grass or paths or cause an obstruction.
3. All paths, roadways, and other hard landscaping to be kept clear of moss, lichen, and other weeds.
4. Trim hedges, including all boundary hedges, back and cut to shape every two months.
5. Prune and shape all trees in the autumn (to the satisfaction of the estate manager). Separate quotations to be given for severe cutting back of trees.

Summary of events

The resident raised concerns regarding the quality of the gardening in June 2020, and the complaint was escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord sent its final response to the complaint on 29 August 2020. Throughout the course of the complaint, the landlord advised that the overgrown area outside the block of flats was the responsibility of the local authority and would be reported accordingly. It confirmed that a bigger reduction would be made to the hedges in autumn subject to its budget and it would get quotations for a significant hedge reduction by two feet where needed. The landlord confirmed that the maintenance team would cut back a few more inches for new growth and ensure branches did not stick out, especially along the public footpath.
There is no evidence of further correspondence between the resident and landlord until February 2021.
On 1 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to raise a formal complaint. He said he had spoken with the landlord regarding grounds maintenance and:
1. asked why there would be an increase in costs for the work to be done.
2. said that the contractor was there that morning but did not fork the borders or cut back any hedges, in line with the contract. He said the local authority had cut back all the hedges in the grounds around the building.
3. the landlord had told him other quotes were being obtained and he asked if residents would see these quotes once they were ready.
In its stage one complaint response, dated 9 February 2021, the landlord said it spoke with the contractor who “completed the usual autumn tasks” of tidying up, cutting some plants back, picking up litter, and also planted some roses on its last visit, which would resolve a bare patch of the flower bed. The landlord said that the ground was hard at that time of year, and it would not expect the contractor to turn over the soil at this time, and there were bulbs in the ground that could be disturbed if the ground was turned over. The landlord said the turning over of soil was not part of winter grounds maintenance works on other estates, and the garden maintenance specification for the estate would be updated to ensure it was accurate and achievable when it was next reviewed.
The landlord explained it would expect a yearly increase in gardening costs and it felt the gardener contractor’s increase was appropriate and good value for money. It confirmed that most residents provided positive feedback on the service provided during weekly calls with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged that there was still work to do on the bushes and said it was seeking quotes for the extra gardening works. It advised that the bush near the carpark did not fall within the gardening specification and would fall under the gardening extra works budget within the service charge. The landlord said it would seek quotes through its procurement process to provide value for money and, as long as it fit within the budget set for the year which residents had already been advised on, it would not normally then re-advise residents of the costs of these works.
The landlord said it would continue to monitor all contracts on the estate and manage them carefully according to the budgets set. It said it was sure that once the weather got warmer, the bushes would be in a better condition and the ground softer and able to be tended to.
On 14 February 2021 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said that all local contracts including gardening should be reviewed by the residents before going forward and the landlord should ensure the contracts were adhered to instead of “finding excuses”.
The resident pursued a response to his complaint on 21 February 2021 and on the next day the landlord advised that it had referred the complaint to be reviewed internally. It apologised that the resident was not updated. The landlord informed the resident on 26 February 2021 that it would respond the following week.
On 4 March 2021 the landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It confirmed no other concerns were raised by residents, but it was aware that some residents may wish to provide anonymous feedback. It said that the revision of the contracts should have been done before with some seasonal amendments and apologised that this had not happened. The landlord advised that:
1. The contract would be amended prior to the procurement of the new contract quoted on for the financial year 2022 to 2023. It would inform residents of amendments to the contract in the next newsletter and send a separate letter to all residents on the estate asking for feedback on services (to be sent back anonymously if required).
2. It was monitoring the works which the garden maintenance team completed. Apart from the extra works it was arranging, the bushes had now been cut back to an acceptable level from a health and safety perspective and it would continue to spot check them.
3. The turning of the soil should be done once the ground softened. It said three- or four-months’ worth of turning over the soil would not necessarily constitute any significant cost to the contract and the contractor donating roses had “gone some way towards this”.
On 6 March 2021 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He asked what amendments were being made to the contract and said he had not seen any quotes that the landlord referred to. The resident said the hedge in front of the carpark had still not been touched and the local authority insisted this was the landlord’s responsibility in line with land registry paperwork. He also said he failed to see how the roses provided were a donation considering the condition of the other plants due to the soil not being turned over in line with the contract. Finally, the resident said the trees in the garden should be pruned to avoid extra costs in the future if they became overgrown.
The landlord updated the resident on 1 April 2021 that it had a site meeting to discuss the hedge that run along the car park. It confirmed some work had been carried out to the hedge already and it agreed that the first part at the entrance to the walkway needed cutting back. The landlord was looking at how it could best utilise its funds to complete this because the hedge was not part of the ground maintenance contract, and it would consult with the residents on this.
The resident replied that he had previously been advised that the residents would not incur any additional costs because the work should have been completed under the grounds maintenance contract. He reiterated that the hedge should be cut back on a regular basis, alongside others. He also said he was still waiting to see the quotes referred to, reiterated that the trees needed pruning, and raised concerns about benches that were unsafe to sit on. The landlord replied that the hedge in the car park and the pruning of the trees were not a part of the contract and had always been paid under extra works for the purposes of the service charges. It also said that the hedges previously discussed did not include this one or the trees.
On the same day the landlord advised the resident that he may ask for an independent review of his complaint through a customer complaints panel or this Service.
The resident the referred his complaint to the landlord’s customer complaints panel and on 20 May 2021 the customer complaints panel wrote to the resident to advise that it concluded that the landlord had responded to the residents’ concerns appropriately and therefore the panel had nothing further to add. The panel recommended that the landlord provide quotes as requested by the resident or a clear explanation as to why these could not be provided, and that regular residents’ meetings resumed (as they were carried out prior to the coronavirus pandemic) when possible, so that the renewal of contracts and other issues could be discussed with residents.
On 8 June 2021 the landlord confirmed it was in the process of formatting the quotes requested by the resident so they could be sent to him. It was also hoping to resume resident meetings that summer, should coronavirus restrictions allow.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations

The tenant handbook confirms that the costs relating to the services covered by the service charge are calculated and presented to residents who pay them as a service charge budget for the whole location. It says the service charge budget is determined by any changes to the services provided which have been discussed and agreed with residents, the quotations received from contractors for any services provided, adjustments made to reflect where the landlord spent more or less than budgeted in a previous financial year, and other goods and services are budgeted for by considering inflation and amending costs accordingly where actual figures are not available.
The landlord holds annual budget meetings (unless tenants at an individual location decide they don’t require this) to discuss the service charge budget for the following financial year and provide an explanation around how each element of the service charge has been calculated. The landlord has confirmed annual statements of income and expenditure against the budget will be made available to residents following such meetings. This will allow residents to see how well the landlord performed against the costs it predicted. A local manager will manage any service contracts such as gardening and window cleaning. If residents have cause for concern, they should contact the local manager or customer relations team. The landlord has said it ensures its contractors provide good value for money by comparing the cost of their work with other similar contractors.
The independent customer complaints panel works independently to review complaints referred to the panel by residents who have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The quality of garden maintenance carried out at the property.

Where a resident has raised concerns regarding the service provided, it is good practice for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations, investigate, address the resident’s concerns, and provide accurate information regarding the outcome of its investigation and the steps it will take to resolve any issues it has identified.
The resident has explained that he has been unhappy with the quality of the ground maintenance since 2019; however, there is no evidence of him raising a formal complaint about this until June 2020. The landlord sent its final response on 29 August 2020, and there is no evidence of further correspondence until the resident raised another complaint in February 2021. Due to the time that had passed, and the subsequent availability of the landlord’s records, this assessment focuses on landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in June 2020 onwards, in particular its response to the complaint of February 2021.
The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the quality of the grounds maintenance by checking its records and liaising with the contractor involved. Although the garden maintenance specification does state that its contractor will fork over all beds and borders, removing weeds at monthly intervals, the landlord has identified that this may not always be possible during the winter when the ground hardens. It reasonably managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that that it would not expect contractors to fork/turn over the soil in winter, that this was not a part of contract for other locations, and it would review this in next contract to ensure it was more accurate and achievable. Furthermore, the landlord sought input from the resident (and other residents) about the management of the garden service. Therefore, the landlord’s actions taken to address the resident’s concerns were reasonable given the circumstances and showed that the landlord was open to the possibility of amending the service if necessary.
There remains a dispute between the resident and landlord concerning the amount charged for the contractor forking over the soil in the winter months. The landlord has said the cost of this was not significant and was partly offset by the contractor providing rose bushes and planting them at no extra cost. The Ombudsman has not seen a breakdown of the maintenance contract showing the exact cost for this part of the work. As explained above, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate whether the service charge represents good value for money and queries of this nature may be better suited to the First Tier Tribunal to assess.
The landlord has explained to the resident that the hedge running along the carpark, and the pruning of the trees referred to by the resident, were not a part of the contract and had always been paid under extra works for the service charges. It was seeking quotes for the completion of works to the hedge and confirmed that it was satisfied that the other hedges had been cut appropriately. The resident maintains that the local authority has confirmed that the hedge is the landlord’s responsibility, however, he has not provided evidence of the local authority advising this.
The garden maintenance requirements for 2019 to 2020 specified that it would trim hedges within the grounds and forming part of the premises back and cut to shape every two months, and prune and shape all trees in the autumn which are within the grounds and form a part of the premises. It is noted that separate quotations will be given for severe cutting back of trees. The landlord has explained why specific areas highlighted by the resident did not form part of the garden maintenance contract. It has confirmed that this work would instead be completed using the extra funds for garden maintenance, which already formed part of the service charge to residents of the scheme. It is expected that there may be some garden maintenance tasks which are needed but do not form part of the landlord’s contract with its garden maintenance team. Such work can be completed on an ad hoc basis and would incur an additional charge, outside the rate set out in the contract. The landlord has made provision for this within the service charge by including a charge for additional garden maintenance. The landlord has explained its position clearly to the resident and does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the quality of garden maintenance carried out at the property.

Reasons

The landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns, in line with good practice, about the quality of grounds maintenance by speaking with its contractor; reviewing the gardening maintenance contract to ensure this was specific and reasonable; reviewing feedback from residents; completing outstanding works within the gardening specification; and requesting quotes for any works outside of the gardening specification. It also provided a reasonable explanation for why some works were not included within the specification and explained how any changes to the contract for the next year would be communicated and discussed with residents.

Recommendation

The landlord should provide copies of quotes for garden maintenance work to the resident as it said it would do in June 2021, unless these have already been provided.