Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Guinness Care and Support Limited (202205546)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205546

Guinness Care and Support Limited

2 December 2022


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 regarding:
    1. The landlord’s standard of maintenance of the communal grounds and hedges.
    2. The landlord’s handling of reports about the conduct of its contractors.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat within a medium rise block with a communal area. The resident has resided there since 2012.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in October 2021, as he was dissatisfied with the maintenance of the communal grounds and hedges. He highlighted the neglect of the hedgerow (mixed hedge of wild shrubs and trees) outside his property, that ran along the perimeter of the estate and main road. He said it had grown six to eight feet and he had a yearly “battle” to have it trimmed. He suggested the landlord trim the hedgerow frequently during the summer to keep it under control and stated that, during the summer when the vegetation was dense, the hedgerow’s close proximity to the flats could cause a fire or serious damage to the building. He later disputed that any work had been done to the hedgerow by the landlord’s contractors and also raised concern about the conduct of the contractor, in particular one member of staff, reporting he had witnessed him taking long breaks, having lengthy conversations with residents, and using his phones for extended periods. He said that, since reporting the issues, he believed the contractor had been intimidating toward him, verbally abusive, and had deliberately blown leaves and debris in front of his property. He expressed his concern over further similar behaviour potentially being aimed at him and questioned why the contractor continued to be employed by the landlord when he considered the service provided was unsatisfactory.
  3. The landlord discussed the issues the resident had raised with its contractor. The contractor reported that leaves and debris may have been blown in front of the resident’s property when they were blowing the leaves off the path. The contractor noted the hedgerow would be cut at a later date when the leaves had fallen, because the branches at the top could become very heavy and difficult to handle. It explained that because some of the branches were close to the road, it was a safety issue with cars passing.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the issues he had experienced and confirmed that the hedgerow would be cut within three weeks. It explained grounds maintenance was checked monthly as part of its existing inspection procedures, but that it had been unable to maintain a normal service due to the impacts of Covid-19. The landlord advised an action plan had been agreed with the contractor, which included regular inspections and meetings to monitor the quality of workmanship, which would ensure services resumed to the normal standard.
  5. The landlord further advised it had held meetings with the contractor and relayed the behaviour issues he had reported. It had investigated the incidents the resident raised but had not found any evidence to support his claims. It said that its monthly inspections of the contractor’s work had not returned any noticeable issues and it was satisfied with the work since. The landlord said that the images of the hedgerow showed it had been cut back and it found no issues. It noted that it would instruct the contractor to continue to monitor when on site but that the evidence available suggested the contractor’s performance was as it expected.
  6. Following the conclusion of its complaints procedure, the landlord later apologised for the delays in its complaint responses and offered a £75 gesture of goodwill, comprising of £50 to reflect the delays in issuing its stage one and two responses and a further £25 for the delay in escalating his complaint.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to this Service, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the communal maintenance issues. He said the top of the hedges had not been maintained and he requested that the landlord change contractors. The resident said the landlord had advised that the hedgerow was not included in the grounds maintenance contract but had been completed as a gesture of goodwill.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has requested that the landlord change its grounds maintenance contractors. This is not something the Ombudsman can order a landlord to do and, in accordance with paragraph 42 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. This investigation will therefore not make any comment on how the landlord chooses to manage its contractual arrangements. However, this investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the concerns the resident raised about the contractor’s conduct and whether its responses were reasonable and treated him fairly.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s estate management policy defines communal areas as parts of the estate that have not been allocated to an individual property or resident and are shared between all residents in the block. The landlord’s guidance on trees and hedges states it is responsible for trees in the communal area.
  2. The landlord’s estate management policy states that where it provides grounds maintenance and gardening services to its estates, it would be in accordance with its agreed standard specifications. The policy further sates it will carry out regular inspections on sites where estate services are provided, and it will assess the service provided by contractors, together with its own performance.

The standard of maintenance of the communal grounds and hedges

  1. From the information seen by this Service, there remains some confusion around who was responsible for maintaining the communal hedgerow that is the subject of this complaint. The landlord’s guidance on trees and hedges states it is responsible for trees in the communal area but does not specify its position on hedges. In the resident’s correspondence to this Service, he said the landlord had advised that the hedgerow was not included in the grounds maintenance contract, but it had carried out upkeep at its discretion as a gesture of goodwill. However, in the landlord’s communication to this Service, dated 9 November 2022, it clarified that it was responsible for any hedgerows. Therefore, that is the position this Service has taken. A recommendation is made at the end of this report for the landlord to review its estate management policy so as to clarify its position on hedgerow maintenance for the resident and other tenants.
  2. After the resident raised concerns about the condition of the communal grounds and hedgerow, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the issue, promptly addressing his reports with the contractor. It also appropriately explained its findings to the resident.
  3. In accordance with the landlord’s estate management policy, the grounds maintenance and gardening services should be kept to a standard that is in accordance with its agreed standard specifications. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to complete inspections of the communal grounds, to ascertain whether or not the hedge was overgrown and to ensure the grounds were in a good standard. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified contractors, who advised the hedgerow would be cut later in November or December when the leaves had fallen. While it recognised that there were some performance issues during Covid-19 lock down, it was appropriate for the landlord to conduct monthly inspections of the contractor’s work, to ensure the communal area was brought back to a good standard. The landlord found that its monthly inspections had not returned any noticeable issues, and so it was reasonable to advise the resident it was satisfied the images showed the hedgerow had been cut back. It was appropriate for the landlord to instruct its contractor to continue monitoring the hedgerow, as this would aid in maintaining a good standard across the estate.
  4. However, as the resident disputed that any work had been done to the hedgerow, this investigation would have expected to see evidence showing how the landlord had satisfied itself that work had been completed and had been done to a satisfactory standard. In the absence of any detailed records of inspections carried out, the landlord is not able to adequately evidence the steps it took to investigate the resident’s concerns. This is not appropriate, raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and is a service failure. Landlords should ensure they keeps comprehensive records of any inspections and works carried out by contractors as maintaining clear, accurate and easily accessible records is a vital part of their service delivery. The landlord should be able to evidence actions it has taken so as to provide an audit trail should it receive complaints.
  5. This Service has not seen any evidence regarding the condition of the hedgerow, or the communal areas so will not make any comment or determination regarding whether they are or were maintained to a good standard or not. However, as above the landlord is not able to adequately evidence the steps it took to conclude there were no issues regarding grounds maintenance. This was a service failure, and a compensation order has therefore been made at the end of this report to address this failing. 

The landlord’s handling of reports about the conduct of its contractors

  1. The landlord does not have policies and procedures pertaining to staff conduct. Generally, however, when concerns are raised about the conduct of a landlord’s contractor, it would be expected to investigate such issues, and explain its position as to whether or not its contractor’s behaviour was appropriate and taking necessary action when required.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s conduct, the landlord responded appropriately and held meetings with its contractor to discuss the resident’s comments. In its complaint responses it advised the resident it had passed on his comments about excessive phone use to the contractor and its records show the contractor subsequently advised that landlord it had instructed its staff to avoid using their phones while on site. While the landlord’s records lack detail (such as when it spoke to the contractor and details of the exact issues discussed), it appears to have responded appropriately following the resident’s reports.
  3. Its records also indicate that it carried out enquiries regarding the resident’s report that he had been verbally abused by the contractor, which this report will not be able to detail due to third party data concerns. While its notes again lack detail and it would have been preferable for its enquiries to have been logged formally, the steps it took to investigate the report were reasonable and in line with what then Ombudsman would expect to see in the circumstances. While this Service acknowledges the apparent upset caused to the resident by the alleged abusive comments and/or behaviour of the contractor, in a situation where there is no evidence other than one person’s word against the other, there were limited actions the landlord could take other than to discuss the reports with the contractor and the enquiries referred to above.
  4. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s workmanship, the landlord acted reasonably by liaising with its contractor to directly address the resident’s concerns. Although the landlord was unable to find evidence to support the resident’s claims about the contractors’ use of phones, excessive breaks and conversations, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain its approach to feeding back his reports to the contractor. The landlord acknowledged it had identified some performance issues during the Covid-19 lockdown periods, but it had been satisfied with the contractor’s performance since. Due to the restrictions that were in place during the period from March 2020, when the first UK lockdown began, this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
  5. The landlord also acted reasonable by explaining that it would continue to conduct monthly inspections around the estate, with the aim of ensuring good standard of work was maintained. It also confirmed it had reviewed photos the resident had submitted of the hedgerow and but advised it was satisfied the evidence showed the hedge had been “cut back” and it could see “no issues with it as it stands”. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the landlord was entitled to advise the resident it was satisfied with the work of its contractors, and it was appropriate that the landlord to keep the resident informed of the outcome of its investigation and its position. 

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has a two-stage complaint procedure. It states that at stage one it aims to respond within ten working days from the date the complaint was logged, and within twenty working days for its stage two complaint response. The policy states that, if there is a good reason, it may take longer, but that it would explain this to the resident.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 October 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 19 October 2021 which was 12 working days outside its complaint procedure. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 January 2022. The landlord issues its stage two complaint response on 25 February 2022 which was 23 workings days outside its 20-day complaint response procedure. In a further correspondence to the resident, dated 12 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses. It appropriately apologised and offered £50 for the delays in its stage one and two complaint responses and £25 for the delay in escalating his complaint, totalling £75 in compensation. 
  3. The landlord’s offer of £75 to reflect the delays in its complaint handling was in line with its compensation policy, whereby it can pay up to £250, where an issue has been resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constitutes reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of the standard of maintenance of the communal grounds and hedges.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of the conduct its handling of reports about the conduct of its contractors
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its complaint handling. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect its poor handling of his concerns regarding the standard of maintenance of the communal grounds and hedges. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this letter.
    2. Write to the resident to formally clarify what its responsibilities are regarding the hedgerow and advising who retains responsibility if it is not the landlord.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the wording of its estate management policy, so it ensures clarity is provided to residents as to who retains responsibility for maintaining any hedgerows on its estates. 
  2. The landlord should conduct a review of its record keeping to ensure it has clear details regarding its contractor’s attendance on the estate and what specific works were completed.