GreenSquareAccord Limited (202214873)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214873

GreenSquareAccord Limited

9 November 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 

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the mess at the resident’s property caused by contractors working at a neighbouring property.
2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2015 and lives in a semi-detached house.
4. In March 2022 the landlord completed roofing work to the resident’s neighbour’s property. On 28 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with his complaint about the way the contractors had left the site. He reported that there was cement all over his guttering, down pipe, patio and windows and that there was either cement or brick dust covering his patio and outside storage containers. The resident sent the landlord photographs of the reported issues. He also said to the landlord that he had previously complained to it in 2021 about a similar experience where contractors had emptied the contents of the neighbour’s guttering onto his patio.
5. Between 3 and 27 April 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response on 3 occasions. On each occasion, the landlord acknowledged the request for a response, advised the resident would be contacted and that the matter had been passed to its planning team for investigation. On 27 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord for details of its complaints procedure.
6. On 1 June 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had logged a formal complaint and it agreed to provide a response by 17 June 2022.
7. On 17 June 2022 the resident did not receive the response and chased the landlord. The landlord responded and explained that the complaint had been overlooked due to a period of leave by the responding officer. It apologised and assured it would provide a response by 24 June 2022. The landlord offered to speak with the resident who declined as he wanted to communicate in writing in order to maintain a record.
8. The landlord provided a response at stage 2 on 24 June 2022. It explained that it was disappointed to see that it had not been responsive when the issue was raised in March 2022 and apologised for the service provided. It noted that it was unavoidable that some debris might have fallen while work was ongoing but accepted that the contractors could have completed a more thorough check of the working area to ensure it was left tidy. It advised that learnings it identified would be raised to the relevant teams to ensure they were addressed and to prevent the same satiation recurring. The landlord advised that due to the time that had passed, it suspected that there was no longer anything it could physically do to rectify the matter. It offered a £10 voucher as an apology for the inconvenience to the resident.
9. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day expressing dissatisfaction with its response. He requested a review of the landlord’s response because:
   1. There were still cement splatters over the guttering which he mentioned were unsightly, could erode the plastic pipe and potentially cause blockages along the pipe. He also said the top of his storage container was stained and that he could not get this off.
   2. It was the second time he had to complain about an untidy worksite being left by landlord’s contractors.
   3. He reported the issue 82 days prior and spent a lot of his time chasing the landlord for a resolution.
   4. The voucher offered by the landlord was not considered satisfactory compensation for the damage and inconvenience caused.
10. The landlord provided a response at stage 3, on 8 July 2022. It confirmed that having reviewed the photographs the resident provided it was satisfied that its stage 2 response was appropriate and fair.
11. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 6 October 2022. He reiterated that there was still cement on the guttering that he could not clean and his storage unit had been stained from the cement/brick dust. He also remained unhappy with the compensation offered.

Post complaints procedure

12. In recent correspondence to this Service the resident has reported that he has an ongoing issue with moss from the roof, causing blockages in the guttering. He has also said that the blocked guttering has resulted in damp and mould on the adjacent internal wall.
13. As these matters did not form part of the formal complaint that finalised the complaints process in July 2022, we will not consider the landlord’s responses to those repairs as part of this investigation. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord in respect of these matters below.

Assessment and findings

14. The landlord’s website explains that during appointments for repairs, residents can expect its operatives and contractors to clean up and remove any rubbish after the repair.
15. In this case works were being carried out to the neighbouring property therefore checking the work area would have likely involved the neighbour’s property and not that of the resident’s. However, on receiving notice of the mess left in the resident’s garden, it is expected that the landlord would have taken steps to address the concern raised within a reasonable time.
16. The landlord took approximately 3 months to provide a response to the resident’s concern. In its complaint response it appropriately upheld the complaint on the basis that it was not responsive when the issue was first raised.
17. When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (in this case an apology, compensation and confirmation that lessons had been learnt) 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.
18. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging that it failed to respond to the resident’s report and offered a £10 voucher by way of compensation for this. It also confirmed that feedback had been passed to its planning team responsible for repairs. The landlord also acknowledged that due to the time it had taken to respond there was not anything it could do to put things right as the resident had already cleared the mess himself.
19. However, this is not considered proportionate for the impact of the service failure identified. As a result of the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s concern within a reasonable timeframe, the resident was required to contact it on 3 occasions for a response and was repeatedly promised contact from the landlord which he did not receive. In addition to this, the resident incurred inconvenience and the trouble of having to clear the mess that had been left behind.
20. The resident has reported staining to his storage container. This Service is not able to assess the landlord’s liability for this as such matters would be considered more appropriate via an insurance claim. The resident also reported cement on the drainpipe and raised concerns about what could happen if the cement was washed down. This Service is not able to decide based on hypothetical situations but has noted the resident’s concern about how the cement could affect the pipe in future.
21. A service failure has been found by the landlord in response to the matter because while it has acknowledged and offered compensation for its failure to respond, its apology and offer of £10 voucher alone is not proportionate to reflect the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for an additional £50 compensation to be paid to the resident in recognition of his time and trouble pursuing the landlord and the inconvenience incurred from clearing the mess.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord’s complaint policy has a 3 stage process. At the first stage the landlord will try and resolve the complaint at the initial point of contact. Where resolution at this stage is not successful or the complaint requires further investigations, it will be considered at stage 2. At stage 2, the landlord is required to provide a response within 10 working days.
23. In this case, the landlord did not attempt to resolve the complaint at stage 1 and its response was delayed at stage 2. After the complaint was raised on 28 March 2021, it took 9 weeks before the landlord acknowledged the complaint and a further 3 weeks for it to provide its response, which the resident had to chase. The landlord’s response at stage 3 however, was provided within its 10 working day timeframe for that stage.
24. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its policy published time frame. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. As a result, the resident had to wait for 12 weeks to receive the landlord’s initial response to the complaint. When the landlord did respond it was unable to take action to address the reported mess due to the time that had passed from when the matter was first raised. The landlord apologised to the resident for part of the delay however, this in itself is not considered reasonable redress in recognition of the overall delay in the landlord responding to the complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidelines, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay £75 to the resident in compensation. This reflects its failings in the handling of the complaint and the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been service failure by the landlord in its response to the mess at the resident’s property caused by contractors working at a neighbouring property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been maladministration by the landlord in its response to the formal complaint.

Reasons

27. The redress the landlord offered is not proportionate to reflect the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience pursuing the matter regarding the mess at the property.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response was not provided in line with the timescales in its policy and the landlord has not offered appropriate redress in recognition of this.

Orders and recommendations

29. The landlord has provided the resident with the details of the £10 voucher it offered in its response to the complaint. Therefore, it is ordered that the landlord arranges for the payment of £125 compensation to the resident. This comprises of:
    1. £50 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience.
    2. £75 for the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
30. The landlord is to complete the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies that may be owed by the resident to the landlord. Once the compensation has been paid, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.
31. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide him with information as to what actions it will be taking to address the guttering and the internal damp and mould. When doing so, the landlord should provide the resident with timeframes as to when it will be taking the necessary actions to address these matters.