Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited (202122765)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122765

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited

18 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about the level of service charge.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance.
    3. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the internal communal area.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The resident has said that she has been raising issues about the standard of the grounds maintenance for many years. The earliest record provided by the landlord shows that the resident emailed it on 11 May 2018 to say that the contractors hardly ever turn up. She told the landlord she has ME and was not always able to take care of the upkeep herself.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 30 August 2018, which it responded to on 10 September. The landlord agreed there had been a drop in service standards and said that photographs would be required from the contractor in future to confirm attendance. As a goodwill gesture, it agreed to waive the service charge relating to grounds maintenance for the year for all residents.
  4. The landlord’s records show the resident emailed it on 20 March 2019 to say that the contractors had not done anything since a visit in the previous September. The landlord spoke with the resident on 1 May and discussed what was outstanding. She said she was happy as long as the contractors made regular visits.
  5. In 2021 the landlord changed its contractors and the resident let the landlord know on 13 May 2021 that the new groundsmen were working hard and were courteous and friendly. However, she contacted it again on 28 June to say they had not returned since. She then raised a complaint on 18 July as she was unhappy that the groundsmen were not attending as scheduled and algae had built up on hard surfaces. She also said that the cleaners who clean the internal communal area had not attended. In her complaint she also questioned the level of service charge.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 July 2021, in which it said that there had been some teething problems with the new contractor but the aim was to make incremental continuous improvements on each cyclical visit. It acknowledged that an internal clean had been missed due to a member of the contractor’s staff leaving, and apologised for this. It said the internal communal area was due for redecoration in November or December.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 17 January 2022 to ask us to investigate. We contacted the landlord who wrote to the resident on 20 January and said it had reopened her complaint for escalation.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 March 2022, in which it said that there had been trouble sourcing liquid moss treatment, but that overall the grounds were being maintained to a reasonable standard. It also said a thorough internal clean had been done, but that photographs clearly showed that the floor coverings were aged and it would look into the possibility of replacing these.
  9. The resident met with the landlord and the groundsmen on 31 March 2022 to show them her areas of concern. The landlord’s notes state that the resident accepted it was an oversight and the areas would be dealt with moving forward. It also updated her that it was in the process of collating prices for replacement of the communal flooring, which she was happy with.
  10. The landlord’s internal records from July to September 2022 show that the results of consultation about replacing the flooring were negative due to the amount of increased service charge in relation to this. It had only received responses from 3 residents, all of whom said no due to the cost, including the resident.
  11. On 3 December 2022 the resident contacted this Service to say that she remained unhappy as she felt the service charge was too high as the groundsmen were not visiting when they should.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. According to paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of rent or service charge increase.
  3. The resident’s complaint about the level of service charge is therefore outside the jurisdiction of this service. The Ombudsman also cannot consider the value for money the resident is getting in relation to her other complaint issues in respect of the service charge.
  4. The resident may be able to apply to the First Tier Tribunal, which has the expertise and authority to consider the reasonableness of the service charges and the level of any increase.

Standard of grounds maintenance

  1. According to paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Under paragraph 42(b) the Ombudsman also may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
  2. There is no evidence that the resident’s earlier complaint from 2018 was escalated to stage 2, therefore she did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. This complaint was also not brought to this Service within 12 months of the landlord’s response. So this Service will not investigate the standard of grounds maintenance at that time. This investigation will begin from June 2021, when the resident first raised concerns about the performance of a new contractor.
  3. The landlord’s grounds maintenance services document sets out its obligations in relation to grounds maintenance and shows what its acceptable standards are. This includes removal of debris such as litter and leaves, and it says that hard surface areas are to be moss free at all times to prevent slips, trips and falls.
  4. The resident first raised concerns about the new contractor on 28 June 2021 as she said that they had not been back since their first visit on 13 May 2021. In her complaint, raised on 18 July 2021, she said that there was a build-up of algae on hard surfaces. The landlord’s records show that moss on the path was discussed at a monthly meeting and this was not dealt with because the operative did not have anything on his van to remove it. Given that removal of moss is one of the landlord’s obligations, it was not reasonable for its contractor to not arrive with the correct tools needed to carry out this work.
  5. In its stage 1 response of 29 July 2021 the landlord said that there had been some teething problems, but that it had received some positive comments and was aiming to make improvements on each visit. The landlord has not provided any evidence of how it was monitoring the work of this contractor at that time and did not set out how it would be ensuring work was completed to a reasonable standard, despite having said in its response to the resident’s earlier complaint that it would be requesting photographs of completed work.
  6. The resident contacted this service on 17 January 2022 to say that she was still unhappy with the grounds maintenance, saying that it improved for a short time after she raised it with the landlord, but then reverted back. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 March, in which it said that a contractor had attended on 23 February and provided post-work photographs. It said that in the main the grounds were of reasonable standard, although some moss remained on the fringes of paths. It said that there had been problems sourcing liquid moss treatment, but that it hoped to be able to carry out this work on 17 March.
  7. The resident responded on 16 March 2022 saying that she was unsure if the groundsmen knew what areas they were responsible for. She said the car park was tidy but that they definitely had not been to the back of the flats as debris and leaves had built up. The landlord contacted her to arrange for her to meet with the contractors when they were on site, which she did on 31 March. She accepted that the area that was being missed was due to a genuine oversight and the contractors agreed to do this work moving forward.
  8. The landlord has provided ground maintenance job checks, which include a list of works carried out on each visit and photographs of the completed work, from October 2022 onwards. These checks show that work has been carried out to a reasonable standard and evidence that the landlord now has oversight of the work that is being carried out. It is commendable that the landlord has now taken this step to ensure that work is being carried out correctly, however these checks only began more than a year after the resident raised this complaint.
  9. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance. Whilst it has now taken steps to monitor the standard of the maintenance, it was too slow to put this in place, and has not provided evidence that it was doing anything to check on the quality of work before October 2022, despite the resident raising her concerns on several occasions. This lack of monitoring means that the landlord has been unable to evidence that it has fulfilled its obligations prior to October 2022.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord failing to monitor the standard of the grounds maintenance.

Internal communal area

  1. The resident’s service charge statements show that the services paid for includes cleaning to any communal areas in the block including hard surface areas.
  2. On 18 July 2021, when she raised her complaint, the resident said that the cleaners had failed to attend. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the cleaners had not attended on 9 July due to a member of the contractor’s staff leaving, and it apologised for this. It also said that internal redecoration was due for later that year.
  3. When the resident escalated her complaint she said that there were paint splashes on the floor, and provided the landlord with photographs of these. The landlord’s internal records show that it acknowledged this paint and said it would get the contractors back to clean this up. In its stage 2 response of 15 March 2022, the landlord said that a thorough clean had been done, however the photographs clearly showed that the floor coverings were of a significant age, so it would look to see when they were due to be replaced. It said that any works would be recovered through the residents’ service charges.
  4. The landlord wrote to all residents on 23 June 2022 to consult with them about replacing the communal floor coverings. It provided a breakdown of the cost per resident per week and asked them to return a questionnaire. The landlord’s records state that only 3 people responded, and all 3 said they did not want the work to go ahead due to the cost. These responses included one from the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the internal communal area. The landlord acknowledged that a cleaning visit had been missed, however it provided an explanation and an apology for this. There is no record of any further visits being missed during period being investigated.
  6. The landlord recognised that the flooring was old, which may have contributed to it looking dirty despite having been cleaned, and consulted with residents about replacing this. It did not go ahead with the replacement as the responses it received asked it not to, including from the resident. In line with what has been explained above about service charges, it is not for this Service to comment on whether the consultation itself and the increased service charge proposed in relation to replacing the floor covering was reasonable. The resident may be able to apply to the First Tier Tribunal to consider the reasonableness of this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the level of service charge is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the internal communal area.

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 in relation to the standard of grounds maintenance and provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with this within 28 days of this report.