Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101927

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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:
1. level of grounds maintenance service charges.
2. landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance.

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 complaint about the level of grounds maintenance service charges.

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.
The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the charges levied against her for the grounds maintenance. As previously advised, 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) and the complainant would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) in relation to how to proceed with a case. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, this Service will be unable to consider this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the property and pays the landlord a service charge towards the grounds maintenance.
On 22 January 2021 the resident called the landlord. She said she had previously called to make a complaint in December 2020, but the landlord did not have a record of this. The landlord assured the resident that it had opened a complaint and would call her back soon.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 4 February 2021 and noted that the resident said:
1. The grounds maintenance contractor was changed a year before and she had complained about the standard of the service for months, and corresponded with several people. There were dead shrubs that needed cutting out and weeds growing over the flower beds.
2. People fly tipped on the grounds. She had sent photos showing residents names on items dumped but received no response and was incorrectly told fly tipping could not be raised unless the perpetrator was known.
3. She often had to separate the recycling in the bins, otherwise the local authority would not take them, and wanted the landlord to send a letter to all residents advising them to recycle properly.
4. She was told a lock would be put on the bin store, but this had not been done.
5. She reported broken glass in the bin store for six months and this had not been removed.
On 16 February 2021 the landlord visited the property and met with the resident. According to the landlord’s notes, it did not find any cause for concern. The resident pointed out hedges to the front of the grounds and said they needed to be weeded and the soil to be visible as it was when she moved in. The landlord said it believed the resident referred to grass but asked for its contractor to attend and comment. It noted that it explained that garden maintenance contract specifications had to meet agreed standards but may be different from personal expectations. It was satisfied with the grass levels at the time and offered to come out again to monitor in the spring/summer, but the resident wanted the issue resolved immediately.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the visit. In particular, the resident said the landlord failed to acknowledge the poor condition of the grounds and did not seem to understand the difference between foliage and weeds. She said the borders, including to the rear garden, were full of weeds and dead plants that needed clearing and felt the landlord dismissed her reports. The resident attached photos of the grounds.
On 18 February 2021 the landlord acknowledged the correspondence and advised it would respond within ten days.
The landlord logged on its system on 19 February 2021 that it left the resident a voicemail to advise it would extend the timeframe for its response by a couple of weeks while it liaised with its grounds maintenance team. It also confirmed it had received the resident’s email and photographs.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord updated the resident advising that it was obtaining quotes to lay bark or grass in areas where the shrubbery had deteriorated to a state where it had become difficult to maintain. It also advised that it did not feel that installing a lock to the bin store would be effective to stop fly tipping because people could throw items over the top. It also experienced residents breaking the lock to enter when they forgot the code or key to other developments. Therefore, it was not looking to make changes to the bin store because, although it attended once or twice, it considered the instances of fly tipping on the development to be low.
The resident replied that there was still an issue with weeds in the rear garden also. She commented that her neighbour had arranged to spray weed killer, which was the contractor’s job. The resident noted that some of the broken glass on the floor of the bin store had been removed, but not all, and confirmed a letter was sent to residents about the misuse of the recycling bins, which appeared to have worked.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord advised that it would attend on 9 March 2021 to look at solutions and get quotes. It confirmed it was looking to remove dead shrubs and either lay bark or grass seed in its place. The landlord updated the resident on 5 March 2021 that it was putting together the complaint response and would be in touch.
Following attempts to contact the resident, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 16 March 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response and said:
1. It liaised with the grounds maintenance contract manager, who confirmed the team had not received any formal complaint previously.
2. Weeding of borders and planters was carried out under the scheduled works. The removal of dead shrubs or replanting was considered additional works. It arranged to meet with the resident on 9 March 2021 to discuss further actions to improve planting.
3. Glass left in the bin store was cleared in January 2021 and, following a further inspection, more glass was identified and it arranged for it to be cleared. The landlord confirmed that residents had received a letter regarding the misuse of the recycling bins, and that he bin area had been used correctly since the letter was issued. The landlord said that it informed the resident on 1 December 2020 that these letters would be sent it and apologised for the delay in it doing so.
4. Reiterated that fitting a lock to the bin shed door would be ineffective, as previously advised.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been a service failure in it responding to the initial enquiry and delays in arranging for the required ground works to be carried out. It apologised for this and offered to pay the resident £150 compensation (£50 for its delay in responding to the complaint, £50 for the repeated contact by the resident to report estate issues, and £50 for its delay in responding to the resident’s enquiry). The landlord said it would contact the resident within 28 days “to move this forward”.
On 23 March 2021 the resident confirmed that she wished to accept the landlord’s compensation offer. She also said that she wanted to add that she complained on 18 September 2020, chased on 8 October 2020, and called in December 2020 to make a further formal complaint. In December 2020 she was advised that somebody would call her back in ten working days but they did not and so she complained again on 22 January 2021. The resident confirmed that she was happy with the proposals made on the visit on 9 March 2021 and the work had now commenced. She said that, although the issue was being dealt with, she was disappointed in how much time and trouble she went to in pursuing the issue and expressed the distress it caused her.
The landlord advised the resident, on 26 March 2021, that it passed the resident’s query to its customer solutions team who would contact the resident directly.
On 23 April 2021 the resident asked for further compensation and expressed her dissatisfaction with the following:
1. The landlord had not contacted her within 28 days to follow up on her complaint and she had not received the compensation she accepted.
2. She was informed by another resident that the landlord completed a post-inspection of the works carried out, but she was not aware of the visit and had not received any correspondence with an update.
3. Her letter of 23 March 2021 detailed a further service failure (the resident did not clarify what she meant by this, but appeared to refer to the landlord’s handling of the complaint) and the landlord did not respond.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence on 29 April 2021. On 12 May 2021 it confirmed it had raised a stage two complaint and it usually responded within 20 working days; however, there was a high level of service requests and it could take longer.
In the landlord’s internal correspondence, dated 12 May 2021, it confirmed that on 9 March 2021 it attended and agreed with the resident to remove the shrubs and lay grass seed at the front of the block. The landlord also confirmed it post inspected the work on 9 April 2021 but did not arrange to meet with the resident because it had already agreed the works with her.
The landlord sent its final complaint response to the resident on 3 June 2021. It acknowledged that the resident was not contacted regarding her compensation and that it failed to make a payment request to pay the resident compensation. It offered her an additional £25 to the £150 previously offered in acknowledgement of this.
The landlord confirmed that it post inspected the works, agreed on 9 March 2021, on 9 April 2021 and apologised that it did not make the resident aware of his post inspection, or the outcome of it. It said that, while it was not a requirement to do it, a complaint had been made so it would have been good customer service for the resident to have been informed and the outcomes discussed with her. The landlord also said it was satisfied that it responded to the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling and that an apology was made for this.
The resident confirmed 10 June 2021 that she would take her complaint to this Service because she did not agree that the work to the garden was carried out to an acceptable standard.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s grounds maintenance specification includes a re-seeding season for areas as identified as required between January and March. It also says that all planted beds should be pruned at least once a year in accordance with good horticultural practice

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance.

Some of the aspects of the resident’s complaint were resolved as a part of the landlord’s internal complaints process by the landlord taking practical measures to address them, including broken glass in the bin store and issues with recycling and fly tipping. However, the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns in relation to the grounds maintenance.
The resident has provided this Service photos in relation to the standard of works carried out to the grounds in March/April 2021. This Service is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions.
When deciding on how best to proceed with any works, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord and its grounds maintenance contractor attended to inspect the grounds on 9 March 2021 and agreed with the resident that it would remove the shrubs and lay grass seed at the front of the block. The landlord confirmed the works were complete on 9 April 2021 during a post inspection.
Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who post inspected the work on 9 April 2021 and was satisfied with the works carried out to remedy the issues identified. While the resident may not agree with the conclusion that the works carried out were satisfactory, the landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly its response to the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance was reasonable in the circumstances.
In relation to the resident’s assertion that the landlord had not responded to the resident’s correspondence and complaints about the grounds maintenance between September and December 2020 -although we do not doubt the resident’s testimony – the landlord was unable to locate a record of the contacts referred to and this Service cannot establish any evidence to support this from the information provided. Nonetheless, the landlord apologised and offered compensation for its handling of the resident’s initial reports, the subsequent repeated contact by the resident to report the issues and the delay in it arranging for the required ground works to be carried out. It offered a total of £175 towards this.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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 amount of £175 compensation provides adequate redress for the service failures identified and is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests similar compensation amounts where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the delays and poor communication did not affect the outcome of the complaint as the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance, but these errors did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has completed practical tasks to resolve the resident’s concerns and provided a reasonable level of compensation, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for its delay in dealing with the resident’s complaints. Although the resident remains unhappy with the standard of the works carried out to the grounds, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified contractor.

Recommendation

That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident the £175 offered in its final response (if it has not already done so). The finding of reasonable redress being conditional upon the compensation being paid.