Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202205948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205948

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

15 September 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

The resident complained about grounds maintenance in communal areas and the landlord’s response to her request for reimbursement of service charges.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. Her tenancy started in December 2014. The resident is charged for grounds maintenance as part of her rent.
The resident’s property is on a development in which the landlord owns several homes. This service understands that some communal areas are therefore maintained by the development’s estate managing agent, and others by the landlord.
In April 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about uncut grass in a communal area. The resident continued to raise her concerns regarding whose responsibility it was to cut the grass. In May 2022 she wrote to the landlord to advise that she had contacted the council who, “have confirmed it is your [the landlord’s] responsibility to cut grass” and she said, “I’m very disappointed that for the last 5 years my neighbours have been trying to contact you regarding this matter and you kept passing the responsibility to the Council”. She said that residents had been forced to cut the grass themselves despite paying service charges.
On 30 May 2022 the resident further complained. She said that maintenance workers had visited but, “they only cut the area that they claimed they are only supposed to cut.” The resident also referred to a lack of contact from the landlord. She continued to raise her concerns with the landlord and on 27 June 2022 she advised that the grass and bushes had become so overgrown that it was difficult for cars to park.
On 28 June 2022 the resident informed the landlord of her ongoing attempts to speak with the managing agents and said, “it is not my responsibility to be chasing up on [managing agents], it is [landlord’s] responsibility.” She said the landlord had been negligent and had been taking money from residents without checking if its contractor was doing its job. She wanted a refund of all the service charges that she had paid since she moved into the property.
The matter remained unresolved and on 5 July 2022 the resident advised that she was now seeking legal action in recovering all the monies paid for a service that had never been received and for damages. The landlord advised the resident that it was difficult for it to liaise with the managing agents on her behalf when it did not know which area was causing concern. The resident had provided photographs, but they did not identify the location so the landlord sent the resident a conveyance plan and asked her to mark the area. In response the resident advised that the plan was complicated, and she could not understand it.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 July 2022 and acknowledged that the resident did not appear to have been updated about who was responsible for maintaining the grassy area that she had first reported in April 2022. It said that while this area was not the landlord’s responsibility, it had arranged for its own contractors to cut the grass on this occasion. It acknowledged that following the resident’s contact with the council, it [the landlord] had identified that the managing agent was responsible for the grass cutting. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s concerns should have been recorded as a formal stage 1 complaint earlier, and it recognised that the conveyance plan was complicated and difficult to understand. The landlord said it had asked the managing agent to contact the resident directly to arrange a site visit so that she could show them the areas she was concerned about, and that once this was complete the landlord would calculate service charge costs that needed refunded. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation which was comprised of £50 for a failure to respond promptly and £50 for not following its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She referred to compensation for damages, time, electricity, use of personal equipment to maintain the area, and being forced to maintain the communal areas for health and safety reasons. She said that the landlord had provided incorrect information by saying that maintenance was the council’s responsibility, which she had established was not the case. She accepted the payment offer of £100 but asked the landlord to review the issues again, to confirm when maintenance would take place and to advise when her service charges would be refunded.
The landlord subsequently noted that it seemed it should be maintaining the shared car park area and it therefore arranged maintenance works. The landlord issued a letter to all residents in August 2022 which confirmed that regular grounds maintenance work would be carried out going forward and that, “We will be refunding the service charge payments that you have made towards grounds maintenance since the start date of your tenancy.”
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued in September 2022 and advised:
1. the planted areas and block paved area were in the ownership of the landlord and had not been maintained. There had been no maintenance agreement in place, however the landlord’s areas were now included within its ongoing maintenance schedule
2. none of the grassed area was owned by the landlord and it therefore had no responsibility for maintenance
3. although it was beyond the landlord’s control that the managing agent had not responded to the resident, it had raised the issues of maintenance responsibility and land ownership with the managing agent
4. there would usually be two elements of service charge for grounds maintenance, one for maintenance of landlord owned communal areas and another to the managing agent for maintenance of estate wide facilities. As areas had not been maintained there had been no service charge levied, therefore there was nothing to refund
5. the resident had been cutting the grassed areas which were not owned or in the control of the landlord and if she wished to pursue compensation for the efforts involved, this would be a matter between her and the managing agent
6. it offered £250 compensation to the resident for the reduction in visual amenity of the external communal areas for which it had responsibility
7. it now believed that there was no failure regarding its logging the resident’s concerns as an enquiry rather than a complaint, but that the offer of £50 made at stage 1 would not be withdrawn
8. total compensation offered to the resident to date was therefore £350.
The resident accepted the additional payment and asked when the refund of service charges would be paid. In response the landlord apologised for any misinterpretation of its stage 2 response and reiterated the information that it had provided (that there had been no service charge levied, therefore there was nothing to refund).
In October 2022, having completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident contacted this service for assistance. She referred to the health and safety risks involved in residents undertaking maintenance themselves and she requested a refund of the service charges paid since the beginning of her tenancy. She asked for the managing agent to maintain the grass area that it was responsible for, and she wanted to be compensated for the landlord’s breach of contract plus damages.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is documented in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord, decide if the charges were reasonably incurred, by whom they are payable, and when.
This means that it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges in the same way as the courts, including if service charges are value for money or if a landlord has breached its contract. What this service can assess however is whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns that the resident raised.
When considering complaints, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; Put things right; Learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s estate management policy advises that between March and October it will visit an estate at least twice a month and that on each visit the Grounds Maintenance team will carry out work to make sure the area looks neat and tidy. Between November and February, the estate will be visited once a month. The cost of these services is covered by the service charge that residents pay along with their rent.
The policy also advises that the landlord is committed to ensuring well maintained and safe estates, which it recognises affects the social, environmental, and economic wellbeing of residents and that, “Where services are provided, we ensure that common parts are inspected, kept clean, safe, secure, regularly maintained, and promptly repaired.” It also confirms that it is not responsible for areas on or near its estates which are privately or externally owned or managed. The service offer in the landlord’s policy does not include blocks managed by managing agents as this is covered in its asset management strategy, however it will visit the managed blocks and report any findings to the block and lease manager for investigation and resolution with the respective agent.
The policy says that the landlord will:
1. ensure it has clear estate management standards which make clear what residents can expect
2. maintain a regular, visible presence on estates
3. ensure it complies with all Health and Safety requirements
4. closely monitor all service contracts.
The landlord did not follow all the obligations as set out in its policy. The landlord was obliged to keep its communal areas well maintained and it recognised in its complaint response to the resident that it did not adhere to its obligations. The landlord also recognised that there were failings in its communication with the resident. The landlord awarded the resident compensation which she accepted. This investigation therefore considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failings.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it was happy to ask the management agent to schedule a meeting with her on site, but it was concerned that this would only delay things further. While it offered this still as an option, it is unclear to this service why a meeting on site would have further delayed things. This service considers that had a joint on-site meeting occurred between the landlord, the managing agent and the resident when she first raised her concerns there would have been an opportunity to resolve the complaint earlier and without the need for it to escalate. The course of events was clearly protracted.
Due to ongoing uncertainty regarding who was responsible for maintenance of the various communal areas, and which areas the resident was complaining about, the landlord asked the resident to mark the area that she was concerned about on a conveyance plan that it sent to her. The resident subsequently advised the landlord that she did not have the competency to do this, and the landlord acknowledged that the plan was complicated. It was inappropriate for the landlord to expect the resident to be able to identify the area from the plan, and more ownership of the issue by the landlord along with a timely site visit would have prevented this additional stress and frustration that the resident experienced.

The resident was provided with inaccurate information regarding the refund of service charges in the stage 1 response, “as soon as [managing agents] confirm the exact location of the area they have not managed ..we can arrange a pro rata refund of the service charges.” The letter from the landlord dated 15 August 2022 said, “We will be refunding the service charge payments that you have made towards grounds maintenance since the start date of your tenancy.” A month later it stated that as areas had not been maintained there had been no service charge levied, therefore there was nothing to refund. The landlord should have ensured that the information it was providing initially was correct and this was a failing on the landlord’s part. It is understandable that the landlord’s responses and change of direction would have caused the resident confusion, frustration, and disappointment when she was subsequently advised that there were no service charges to be refunded.
At stage 1 of its complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £50 for its failure to respond promptly and £50 for “our failure to follow the Complaints Policy and open a stage one complaint on 27 June”. By this point the resident had made multiple contact attempts including to the landlord, the management agent and the council. She had provided photographs and had been asked to try and identify areas on a conveyance map, which the landlord acknowledged was complicated and difficult to understand. As she highlighted herself this was not her job to do, and this would have caused her frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble. The landlord should ensure that its initial compensation offer reflects the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the resident’s time and trouble along with any distress and inconvenience caused.

In contradiction to the stage 1 response, the landlord’s stage 2 response advised, “there has been no failure in initially recognising the matter as a complaint as this was considered an enquiry at the time.” This service however considers that the landlord’s response at stage 1 (which referenced the resident’s complaint dated 27 June 2022) was correct. The resident had said she was really upset and referred to there being a need to escalate the matter urgently. In line with the landlord’s own complaints policy, and with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code this was clearly, “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual customer or group of customers’. This change of direction therefore at stage 2 was inappropriate and would have caused the resident unnecessary confusion.
When considering compensation, this service takes into account a range of factors such as the circumstances of the case, and the landlord and Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. The Ombudsman’s remedies are never intended to be punitive, as the Ombudsman is an alternative dispute resolution process to taking legal action. That means that it does not make the same findings that a court would and does not operate in the same way as a court does or make binding decisions on matters such as contract breaches or service charges.
The landlord has advised that, following this service’s request for evidence, it contacted the resident on 24 May 2023 to understand how it could come to an agreeable resolution. The landlord has advised this service that in total the following payments have been made to the resident:
1. £50 for failure to promptly respond to her enquiries
2. £50 for failure to raise the initial issue as a complaint
3. £250 for the efforts and the impact this had on the neighbourhood and aesthetics
4. £250 in recognition of the effort the resident personally made to follow the matter up on her own accord, which this service understands was offered following the landlord’s contact with the resident in May 2023.
The landlord’s offer of £600 demonstrates that it considered the service failings and the impact on the resident. The landlord has also advised this service that the resident’s area is on a programme of maintenance works now and that, because of the resident’s feedback, it will be implementing thorough procedures for managing the performance of all its managing agents. It has advised that its estates teams are now conducting site inspections on the sites in which the landlord has third parties managing them, and that they will be providing reports on the condition of these sites. This is a welcome approach and demonstrates the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
The overall financial remedy offered by the landlord is in accordance with this service’s remedies guidance and, considering all the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this appears suitable financial redress.
The above demonstrates that the landlord appropriately carried out investigation of the complaint, identified and acknowledged service failings, and sought to address all issues the resident raised and to make reasonable redress to her in recognition of the issues she experienced. Overall, the landlord’s response evidences that it tried to put things right, in line with this service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord’s final offer of redress is considered to be proportionate to the impact that its actions had on the resident and its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in response to the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance in communal areas and the landlord’s response to her request for reimbursement of service charges.

Recommendations

This service recommends that the landlord:
1. ensures appropriate monitoring of services as it has said it would do. The resident has recently advised this service that she has needed to follow up with the landlord regarding maintenance concerns
2. includes information, where appropriate,when issuing service charge invoices and responding to service charge disputes and complaints that reminds residents of their rights to challenge service charges and then apply to the First-Tier Tribunal
3. arranges for a joint inspection to be carried out of communal areas with the managing agent, the landlord and the resident,and let the resident know the outcome.