Midland Heart Limited (202126107)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126107

Midland Heart Limited

14 June 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 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 concerns about its communal grounds maintenance.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is the tenant of the landlord of a flat in a communal building with a shared garden.
4. On 7 September 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord regarding the lack of communal grounds maintenance at his building. He was dissatisfied that its contractors had not attended the communal garden there since July 2021, and that they did not arrive there at all during August 2021. The resident wanted an explanation as to what would be done to ensure that such delays would not occur again in the future.
5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident did not arrive until 29 October 2021, and it apologised to him for the delay in its response. It explained that its contractors did not have specific appointment dates and times to attend the communal garden, but that they aimed to visit once a month during winter and fortnightly during summer. The landlord further explained that its contractors had missed appointments in August 2021 due to staffing issues caused by Covid-19, but had made up for the missed appointments by attending on 7, 9 and 22 September 2021. It acknowledged that the resident should have been notified of the non-attendance and apologised that he had to contact it to receive an update.
6. As redress, the landlord offered the resident £75 compensation, this was broken down as £25 for not responding in a timely manner to his complaint, and £50 for the lack of communication about its contractors’ grounds maintenance visits. It further explained that its offer was in line with its compensation matrix, but that it had been unable to find a failure on its part in relation to the number of visits, as there were a set number of visits that were required to take place each year that could occur at any time.
7. The resident said in his final stage complaint of 2 November 2021 that he believed that the landlord was being contradictory when it stated that there were no specific appointments for grounds maintenance, but that its contractors aimed to complete a certain number of visits during summer and winter months. He also considered that the contractors only arrived once on 29 September 2021, and he found it “perplexing” that the grass was cut three times during winter but not once during the spring summer, which he thought had exceeded the maximum permitted length.
8. The resident additionally had concerns that he had received no reassurances from the landlord that the issue of the lack of grounds maintenance would not occur again, as he did not want to monitor the work himself. He also wanted the £75 compensation to be paid to him directly instead of going towards his rent arrears.
9. In its final stage complaint response to the resident, the landlord stated that its contractors did not have set dates for their grounds maintenance visits, as these were dependent on the season and weather conditions. It allowed its contractors to have flexibility so that they could target their resources according to these requirements, explaining that they could do more in one month and less in another in order to meet the grass height specification depending on different growth during wet and dry spells.
10. The landlord further added that it had recognised the need to improve the tracking of its grounds maintenance, so it had provided access to a portal that its staff could use weekly to monitor contracts across its properties. This would allow the contract management team to update the resident regarding site visits or any other issues. The landlord also explained that the £75 compensation would go towards any rent arrears that he had at the time of it processing this payment, but that it would refund this to him if he was in credit afterwards.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. He was not happy with the landlord’s final response, as he felt that it did not answer the questions that he had asked it, and that it had responded to him in an untimely manner, and because it had applied his compensation to his rent account for arrears that he disputed. The resident also stated that he should be compensated directly with a larger amount, that its contractors had not attended enough in the summer and too much in September 2021, and that he had received no confirmation of the measures to that were implemented improve its oversight of its contractors.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its communal grounds maintenance

12. Under the landlord’s environmental services setting the standards of your contractors brochure, it has an obligation to ensure that grassed areas are left neat and tidy, and that they are cut no lower than 25mm and grow no longer than 125mm. It is also responsible for ensuring that its contractors visit each site at least 18 times each March to October, weather permitting, in order to perform frequent maintenance of the garden spaces.
13. The resident could, therefore, reasonably expect under the landlord’s brochure, that its grounds maintenance contractors would arrive to their contracted number of visits in August 2021, and cut the communal garden spaces at his building. However, it would have been unreasonable to have expected the landlord to have predicted that staff shortages in August 2021 would occur due to Covid-19, as this was an unexpected external factor that was beyond its control. Nevertheless, its actions accorded with the expectations of the brochure in light of these circumstances, by instead arranging for its contractors to make frequent visits on 7, 9 and 22 September 2021 to make up for the missed attendances, and therefore it acted reasonably.
14. This is because the landlord’s complaint responses explained that its contractors had the flexibility to make more visits in one month and less in another in order to meet its brochure’s maximum number of visits, which were not at set times, and the grass height specification, depending on different growth during wet and dry spells. This meant that it was permitted to have fewer grounds maintenance visits in August 2021 and more in September 2021, and this was also suitable given the need for responsive maintenance to address different growth during wet and dry spells.
15. In addition, the landlord’s intention to improve the tracking of its grounds maintenance contracts, by providing access to a portal that its staff could use weekly to monitor the contractors across the properties, demonstrated a willingness to learn from outcomes and put things right for the resident. It was appropriate for it to create a system that would allow the contract management team to contact him to provide updates on site visits and other ongoing issues. The resident expressed concerns that he had received no confirmation that those measures were in place, and so it is recommended below that the landlord contact him to confirm the measures that it has implemented to improve oversight by the contract management team.
16. Moreover, the compensation of £50 offered to the resident by the landlord for its lack of communication regarding its reduced grounds maintenance in August 2021 was proportionate to put things right in all the circumstances of his case. This is because the amount was in line with its compensation matrix, which recommended payments of £35 to £70 for failures of service as a result of delays, quality or administrative errors, and there is no evidence that the lack of communication had such an adverse effect on him that a higher level of compensation was require for this.
17. Also, the compensation matrix permitted the landlord to check for rent arrears on the resident’s account for compensation payments of £50 and above, for which it could then apply the payment to his rent account. As he explained that he disputed the arrears on the account, it was appropriate that its final stage complaint response offered to refund the compensation to him if his account was in credit after any successful challenge to the arrears on his part, with it being allowed by its matrix to consider these in the meantime.

The landlord’s complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaints, comments and compliments policy states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. It did not follow its complaint procedure in respect of the resident’s stage one complaint of 7 September 2021, however, as its stage one response on 29 October 2021 exceeded the designated timeframe by 28 working days. The landlord did nevertheless respond to the resident’s final stage complaint of 2 November 2021 within the designated 20-working-day timeframe of its policy, as its response came on 18 November 2021.
19. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise for the delay in its stage one complaint response, and to offer compensation to the resident as redress. The offer of £25 was proportionate to put things right, as this was in line with its compensation matrix that gave it discretion as to the size from which it awarded goodwill payments for upset or inconvenience. The delayed stage one response was additionally not excessive, nor is there any evidence that this caused further distress to the resident that required a higher level of compensation. It is recommended below, however, that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints, comments and compliments policy to prevent a recurrence such delays.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of his concerns about its communal grounds maintenance satisfactorily.
21. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

22. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to confirm the measures that it has implemented to improve oversight of its grounds maintenance contracts by its contract management team.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints, comments and compliments policy to prevent future complaint handling delays.