Home Group Limited (202001298)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001298

Home Group Limited

7 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the standard of grounds maintenance being provided.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint centres around whether she should pay service charges for grounds maintenance works and/or what a reasonable amount would be for her to pay given the level and quality of service offered by the landlord. However, paragraph 39 of the Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion:
    1. concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase (39(g));
    2. concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure (39(i)).
  3. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) deals with disputes about liability to pay services charges and their reasonableness and is the appropriate avenue for this part of the complaint. In addition, this part of the complaint amounts to a challenge of the level of service charge payable by the resident. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 39(g) and (i), as set out above, this part of the complaint is not investigated by this Service. However, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and how it monitored and remedied the situation regarding the grounds maintenance itself do fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a ground floor flat. On 25 April 2019 she contacted the landlord about the communal gardens at the property, saying that they were overgrown and there were weeds and rubbish everywhere. She said the landlord’s contractor had not been for four months, even though a service charge was being made for a regular attendance. She reported that this had been going on for two years and that the areas had originally been “pristine” but the landlord had changed to a less effective contractor.
  2. On 11 June 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to express her disappointment that she had heard nothing following her initial contact. She therefore raised a formal complaint and reiterated the submissions made in her previous correspondence. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and confirmed that its operations manager would be asked to review it and provide a plan of action to resolve the situation. It asked the resident to provide photographic evidence of the current condition of the garden.
  3. The landlord spoke to the resident by telephone on 14 June 2019 to discuss the matter further. She explained that the grass was high, there was rubbish everywhere, weeds were coming through the paths and were all over the flower beds. She said the drains were blocked with leaves which was effecting drainage at the site and she had spoken to various landlord staff about it over a prolonged period but they “didn’t seem to care”.
  4. In the landlord’s update of 18 June 2019, it confirmed that it would carry out a site inspection on 21 June 2019, to assess the standard of the work being done by its contractor. If the work was not acceptable it may offer compensation to reflect the fact that the resident had paid for a service she was not receiving.
  5. On 25 June 2019, the resident chased the landlord for confirmation of the outcome of its visit and, on 1 July 2019, she sent some photographs showing the current condition of the gardens. In the landlord’s further update of 4 July 2019, it said it was discussing the position with its contractor regarding what work was required and how its performance was going to be monitored.
  6. A further update was provided by the landlord on 10 July 2019, when it said that it was not yet able to provide its full response as it was still investigating what actions needed to be taken to bring the gardens up to standard. It was also waiting for further input from its maintenance team as to what deterrent it could install to prevent animals getting into the bins area, which was considered to be the reason for the littering problem.
  7. By 16 July 2019 the landlord had decided to fence/gate in the bin area and the work was scheduled to take place on 8 August 2019. The resident was notified of this development. On 22 July 2019, the landlord emailed her to report that its staff member had spoken to its contractor, asking it to attend and put right the issues with the garden. A further inspection was about to take place to see if the contractor had done anything in the meantime.
  8. On 8 August 2019 the resident emailed the landlord checking the ‘fox-proofing’ was taking place that day and reporting that the garden had still not been brought up to standard. The landlord noted that, at its recent inspection, the issue of grounds maintenance had not actually been considered by its staff member after all, and it agreed to arrange a further visit.
  9. On 16 August 2019 the landlord noted that a fence/gate to the bin area had been installed but had not prevented animals getting in as it had a gap to the bottom and top, thus allowing ongoing access. Further works were being arranged. At this time the landlord also noted that the resident had reported that its contractor was only attending the property every 6 weeks rather than every two, as set out in her copy of the gardening contract. She had reported that it was cutting the lawn with a hedge trimmer and there were weeds in the flower beds, taller than the plants that were meant to be there. 
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 August 2019 to remind it that she was not paying her service charge whilst she considered she was not receiving the service paid for and noting that she had received no resolution to her complaint. The landlord acknowledged her email and stated that it was awaiting input from a more senior member of its staff.
  11. On 23 August 2019 the landlord’s staff member reported to it that, at the inspection in June 2019, the grounds were judged to be “satisfactory”. It confirmed its contractor was on a fortnightly schedule and recommended fortnightly visits to check the property and monitor the contractor’s performance, as opposed to the current monthly attendances. However, on 29 August 2019 the landlord visited the property again and concluded that work was needed to cut back hedges and trees and to cut the grass after all. It also reiterated that further works were needed to the bin storage to prevent animals from gaining access. The landlord updated the resident on these issues on 2 and 13 September 2019.
  12. A further site visit was arranged for 8 October 2019. However, before that, on 3 October 2019, the landlord noted that its contractor was not maintaining the communal areas in accordance with its contract. It found that the contractor was not complying with its obligations to: regularly prune the shrubbery; remove weeds from around flower beds every two weeks; remove weeds from the concrete and pathways every two weeks; rake over or hoe bare areas of soil monthly; and cut the grass fortnightly to between 2 and 4cm high. Its intention was to check its contractor’s performance against these requirements at the visit on 8 October 2019. It emailed the resident the same day to set out its intended visit and thanking her for her patience whilst her complaint was resolved.
  13. At the site visit, the landlord’s staff member concluded that the communal area had been brought up to standard and that they were satisfied with the works undertaken. The landlord determined that photographic evidence of the works was required to confirm the complaint had been resolved and could be closed and asked the inspecting staff member to provide these.
  14. On 23 October 2019 the resident confirmed to the landlord that its contractors had attended on 3 October 2019. The bin cupboard was now animal proof, which had helped the situation with litter. Some grounds work had been completed, with an improvement noted, but it had not been finished and the contractor had not been back since. The resident noted that this was in breach of its contract which was to attend fortnightly. She expressed concern that the landlord’s contractor may have caused considerable damage during its pruning of a bush/hedge which had been cut back into old wood and was unlikely to regrow from there. She was under the impression the landlord had not attended the site on the day of the planned inspection and had not kept to its commitment to attend fortnightly. The landlord replied that its staff member had been satisfied with the standard of the communal gardens when they had attended on 8 October 2019 but that the situation was again being looked into in light of the resident’s feedback.
  15. Accordingly, the site was inspected again on 31 October 2019, when the staff member concluded that the gardens were satisfactory. However, on 4 November 2019 the resident emailed the landlord again, setting out all of the provisions of the contract between the landlord and its contractor which she considered the latter had breached. She asked how long her complaint would have to remain open before it was resolved and asked for it to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process.
  16. The landlord noted on that day that it needed to have an “action plan” to ensure all parts of the contract were being met and that visits were regular in accordance with that agreement. It noted that it could not charge its customers for fortnightly visits if they were not taking place. It telephoned the resident to discuss her concerns and agreed to attend the next day for another inspection.
  17. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 5 November 2019, it agreed that the grounds maintenance was not up to standard. It confirmed that it had gated the bin store to deter animals and since then the rubbish levels were improved. With regards to grounds maintenance, it noted that works done in October 2019 had improved matters, but this had not then been finished off or maintained, the resident having provided photographic evidence to support this. It had concluded that the areas were up to standard but now accepted this was not the case. Accordingly, it had escalated the complaint to stage two of its procedure.
  18. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the site on 27 November 2019 to carry out a schedule of works to tend the lawn and weed between the plants and paving slabs. It advised the resident of this forthcoming attendance and asked her to provide feedback afterwards. On 3 December 2019, the resident provided her feedback, stating that, whilst the situation was much improved, there was still work to be done. She questioned how the contract would be conducted and monitored going forward and by who, and what was to happen about the bush/hedge that had been incorrectly pruned and now appeared to be beyond repair.
  19. On 11 December 2019, the landlord confirmed to the resident that visits for grounds maintenance should be every 2 – 3 weeks. The next visit was scheduled for 17 December 2019 and its staff member would visit shortly after to monitor standards. Going forward, it would time its visits to be shortly after its contractors were due to attend for better performance monitoring.
  20. Early in 2020, the resident provided her up to date feedback to the landlord stating that she had filled two bags of rubbish from the gardens and there was still room for improvement. The landlord responded that it was reviewing the matter with its contractor “as a priority”. On 7 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident explaining that it was having internal discussions to determine what outcome to offer the resident, mainly with regards to a service charge refund/reduction. It would then issue its stage two response to the complaint itself.
  21. Internally, the landlord noted that the grounds maintenance contract was not being carried out properly. It had introduced a new contract with a different contractor (but later noted this was for other properties that it managed and not this one). It noted the resident was paying £3.04 per week for this aspect of her service charge and there had been no attendance for 9 weeks – hence a refund was due of 9 x £3.04 = £27.36. The landlord resolved to carry out inspections regularly, complete inspection forms and serve rectification notices on the contractor if there were any lapses in performance.
  22. On 21 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident apologizing that it had still not been able to issue its final complaint response due to staff changes and an urgent issue which had arisen and needed to be given priority. It committed to providing the response in the following working week.
  23. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 27 February 2020, it agreed that the standard of service received from its contractor was unacceptable and that this had been the case for some time, although there were incidents of improvement along the way. It apologised for the situation and committed to bringing standards “back in line with what we would expect”. It confirmed that, notwithstanding the performance issues, the contract had recently been extended and attendance, going forward, would be every three weeks with the landlord inspecting the property fortnightly. Its most recent inspection had found that the gardens were in a satisfactory condition, although there was room for improvement. The contractor had been specifically instructed to attend to the moss on the pathways at its next visit. The landlord confirmed that its staff member would put a notice up on the communal noticeboard at the property confirming the dates of its visits.
  24. The landlord offered £225 compensation (£75 for its service failure, £75 for the resident’s time and effort in pursuing the matter, and £75 for its delays in responding to the complaint). It further offered a service charge refund of £27.35 (sic) which it stated was “in recognition of a 9 week period over Christmas whereby grounds maintenance was not undertaken”. It stated that, whilst standards had not always been where they should be, attendances had taken place and the charges were otherwise payable.
  25. Shortly after this, on 28 February 2020, the landlord corrected the information provided to the resident and confirmed that the frequency of its contractor’s visits would actually be fortnightly (and not three-weekly).
  26. On 24 August 2020 the resident confirmed to this Service that her desired outcome was for the landlord to remove the ground maintenance fees from her service charge as she had not been provided with the service charged for. Going forward she wanted standards to be established and then maintained. In October 2020 the landlord agreed a new maintenance contract with a new contractor. It has stated to this Service that its housing team are monitoring performance through regular site inspections.

Agreements, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Comments Policy sets out its approach to complaints. Its aim is to deal with complaints “timely” and it can offer “discretionary compensation” where the circumstances make it appropriate to make a goodwill gesture and award a financial remedy. The policy does not set out any guidance by way of the amount of compensation to be awarded. 

Assessment

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the communal gardens/area that the resident’s flat is situated in. Neither is it disputed that the landlord is entitled to pass on the cost of doing so to the resident by way of a service charge payment, in accordance with the terms of her lease.
  2. Since at least early 2019 the resident has been unhappy with the standard of the grounds maintenance. The landlord conducts periodic inspections of the flats and has produced a number of its ‘Estates Inspection Forms’. It confirmed in June 2019 that animals getting into the bin store were creating a litter/refuse problem, that the hedges and trees needed pruning and that its contractor’s performance, in maintaining the grounds, needed to be monitored to ensure standards were met. It noted the same problems again in July, August, September, and October 2019, with little apparent action taken to remedy them. By November 2019, an inspection confirmed that rubbish was still a problem, but the hedges, trees, grass and hard surfaces were all now deemed to be satisfactory.
  3. However, during this period (and after it) the resident was producing photographic evidence which contradicted the landlord’s staff member’s assessment of how acceptable the maintenance was. It is possible, of course, that the resident’s and the inspecting staff member’s respective views of what constitutes ‘acceptable’ were different. However, the resident was also able to demonstrate to the landlord, with reference to its contractor’s contract, that agreed standards were not, in fact, being met. The resident has provided her photographic evidence for the purposes of this investigation and it has been considered. However, it is not for this Service to provide an expert opinion on how the maintenance should have been carried out or whether the attending operatives were competent and/or properly equipped.
  4. In any event, the landlord’s complaint handling staff accepted that the grounds were not being maintained appropriately in a number of respects following these representations and having had sight of this photographic evidence. The landlord accepted that there had been a failure in the service offered to the resident as a result. The landlord further accepted that there had been a delay in dealing with the complaint (the evidence shows this was mainly due to the complaints handling staff trying to drive improvements and a satisfactory upgrade before closing the complaint). The landlord offered compensation to reflect this delay, the inconvenience the resident had been put to overall, and for the service failure itself. The landlord’s acceptance of its failings and its decision to offer compensation were appropriate as part of a fair and proportionate complaint handling process. The evidence confirms there were failings on its part.
  5. In terms of the level of compensation offered, it is noted that, whilst the standard of the grounds was not as it should have been, this should not have had a significant impact on the resident’s occupation of the property itself, only on her enjoyment of its surroundings. That is not to diminish how the resident feels about it, but this is not a case where she was left, for example, with a leaking roof and/or no heating or hot water.
  6. The amount of compensation, in total, was reasonable and the offer was appropriately made. In terms of the landlord’s offer to make a service charge reduction and how much it should be for, this is an issue that will not be investigated by this Service, as set out at the start of this report. Accordingly, no opinion is given on whether it was a fair and reasonable offer. However, the landlord’s offer in this respect only covered the period over Christmas 2019 and the resident had complained about a lack of attendance for a significant period before that. It is recommended below that the landlord reviews whether it stands by that offer in the light of this observation.
  7. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress, as in this case.
  8. In terms of moving forward, the resident reasonably reports having no confidence in the landlord’s ability to monitor its contractor’s performance, drive improvements and maintain a higher (or even an acceptable) standard. The evidence shows that the landlord correctly identified that it needed to monitor performance yet still failed to do so effectively. It is this Service’s view that that is, in part, down to the way in which it assesses and completes its “Estate Inspection Forms”.
  9. It is noted that a score is given for individual aspects of the property as it is inspected. For example “gates & fencing”, or “pest control”. The scores range from 0 (unacceptable) to 3 (excellent). An overall score is then given for each category that those aspects are grouped into, for example “grounds maintenance” or “external inspection”. The evidence suggests that, if the overall score for a group came out as acceptable, then nothing changed from one inspection to the next, even if there were elements within the group that were unsatisfactory. Further, if there were items within a category that received an “excellent” or “3” rating, for example, this would have the effect of negating an unacceptable score of say “0” or “1” on a different aspect within that grouping.
  10. A recommendation is made below that the landlord consider amending that form to require its inspecting staff member to confirm they have reviewed their preceding inspection report prior to the one taking place, noted those aspects that were given scores below satisfactory, and looked at whether that had changed and if not, why not. Appropriate action could then be identified and attended to.
  11. Finally, for the sake of completeness it is accepted that during the Spring of 2019 restrictions were placed on everyday life due to the coronavirus pandemic and the landlord was unable to offer the same degree of service. This has been taken into account in this investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. 

Reasons

  1. The evidence demonstrates service failings on the landlord’s part in handling the resident’s reports that grounds maintenance was not being carried out to the required standard. It delayed in providing its complaint response, although it kept the resident informed of developments and used the time to try to drive improvements in the matter complained of. It was appropriate that the landlord accepted its failings, apologised and offered compensation. The level of compensation was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. re-offer the £225 compensation to the resident, if this has not already been paid, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis;
    2. review whether it stands by its service charge reduction offer in the light of this Service’s observation that it only covered the period over Christmas 2019 and the resident had complained of, and evidenced, a lack of service over a longer period;
    3. consider amending its Estate Inspection Forms to include a requirement for its inspecting staff member to confirm they have reviewed their preceding inspection report prior to the one taking place, noted those aspects that were given scores below satisfactory (“0” and “1”), and looked at whether that had changed in the intervening period and if not, why not. Appropriate action to remedy those issues could then be identified in the “Action Required” section and attended to.