Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202212845)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212845

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

24 May 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:
   1. the resident’s concerns about communal grounds maintenance.
   2. The associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

2. In her correspondence with the landlord, the resident has said that the landlord’s contractor acted fraudulently. Fraud is a criminal matter and therefore falls outside of the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether this took place. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. If the resident continues to have concerns over fraudulent activity then it is suggested that she contact the police as the police are best placed to investigate allegations of criminal activity.
3. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the level of service charge charged by the landlord for grounds keeping. Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Disputes concerning the level, reasonableness, and liability to pay rent or service charges are within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident may wish to seek independent advice on bringing such a case to the Tribunal.
4. This investigation will therefore consider whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the standard of grounds maintenance and whether it provided a reasonable level of service in accordance with its obligations.

Background

5. The resident is the leaseholder of the property which is on an estate with communal grounds.
6. The resident initially contacted the landlord in October 2021 to obtain information about her service charges and the communal grounds maintenance. She then wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2022 in which she disputed that certain visits and jobs, which were recorded as completed, were attended by the contractor. The resident contended that the contractor was fraudulently taking payment for work that had not been done. The landlord responded three days later to say that it was “clear” that some areas had been missed and relayed that it had passed the matter to its contract manager to address.
7. There was no further response from the landlord and, on 28 April 2022, the resident raised a complaint with it. She said that the landlord had not followed its complaints procedure by not responding to her report of “potential fraud” by the contractor and advised that she would approach the Ombudsman if it did not respond. The landlord responded the next day to say that it had “investigated [her] complaint” and would request the contractor return to complete work. It said it had not received the resident’s previous letter and advised that she would need to raise a complaint to the landlord before she could bring the matter to this Service.
8.  After informing the landlord on 29 April 2022 that her email of the previous day was her complaint, she raised a complaint again on 2 May 2022 which included supporting details from other residents unhappy with the grounds maintenance service. She wanted a refund of service charges paid for grounds maintenance for herself and the other residents.
9. The landlord issued an initial final response to the resident, on 9 June 2022, in which it provided explanations of why contractors may not have been ‘visible’ on site, and how the impact of exceptional foliage growth and the coronavirus pandemic had affected the service. The landlord said that the contractor “appear[ed]” to be on schedule, photographs “suggest[ed]” that the work specification was being carried out, and the contractors confirmed they had attended as required. Nevertheless, it accepted that there had been “poor performance” and that the contract was not meeting resident’s expectations. It said this would likely be renegotiated in the next 12 to 18 months. The landlord confirmed it would be visiting the estate on 15 June 2022 and would provide a further response after this.
10. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 17 June 2022 which relayed that her neighbours had agreed to monitor the contractor’s work. It relayed that the contractor had provided evidence which indicated that the contract was being fulfilled.
11. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 14 October 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the standard of grounds maintenance and that the landlord did not have evidence to corroborate the contractor’s account of its work. To resolve her complaint she wanted further details of the outcome of the visit on 15 June 2022, a rebate of service charge and a better standard of grounds maintenance.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal grounds maintenance

12. The Ombudsman notes that photographs have been submitted as part of the evidence for this case. Whilst we have viewed the photographs as part of our investigation, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which we can rely on such images. This is because photographs capture a moment in time and it is not possible to confirm what happened before or after the photographs were taken.
13. The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the common parts of the property. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for the maintenance of the communal grounds of the property. Its grounds maintenance and communal areas webpage states that one of the landlord’s responsibilities is “checking contractors are doing a good job”.
14. The Ombudsman would expect, whenever a service is provided to residents through a contractor, for a landlord to have a robust system in place for the oversight of its contractors. In this instance, it would be expected of the landlord to satisfy itself that its contractors were maintaining the standard of grounds keeping expected, such as by carrying out regular estate inspections. There was no evidence of any such inspections, other than the landlord’s visit to the estate on 15 June 2022.
15. When the resident disputed that the contractor had fulfilled its contracted number of visits, the landlord sought confirmation from its contractor to evidence that grounds maintenance visits had taken place. It was unreasonable for the landlord to rely only on the submissions from its contractor to confirm that works had been completed, particularly when those works were disputed by a resident.
16. In the absence of the evidence of estate inspections, it can only be assumed that these did not take place. Therefore, there was no evidence of the landlord having an adequate system in place for satisfying itself that the grounds maintenance was being carried out to an appropriate standard.
17. While, in its complaint responses, the landlord did acknowledge that the contractors had met the work specification but had “missed” some areas of grounds maintenance, it did not fully address the resident’s concerns about visits not being attended, contrary to the contractor’s records. It reasonably noted that the standard of grounds maintenance was not meeting residents’ expectations and it would be reviewing the contract in 12 to 18 months. However, it was unreasonable that it provided no assurances or resolutions to ensure that current grounds maintenance work would be carried out appropriately and the contracted number of grounds maintenance visits would be kept. Therefore, the landlord failed to fully address the substance of the resident’s complaint.
18. While the landlord did propose a reasonable solution to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the standard of grounds maintenance by suggesting consulting residents about a change of contract, it did not fully address the immediate issue. It did not address that, in the interim before any change of contract, the resident would likely continue to have concerns over the performance of the current contractor as the landlord could not evidence that the work charged for through the service charge was being performed. This would also have implications for any subsequent contract, as there was no evidence of a system for the adequate supervision of contractors. This amounts to a failure of service by the landlord.
19. Compensation of £100 should be paid to the resident to recognise her expenditure of time and trouble, and her inconvenience in bringing the complaint. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, which provides for awards of between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which led to detriment for the resident, but which may not have caused any permanent impact.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

20. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaint procedure. This commences when an initial attempt by the landlord to resolve a matter is not successful. At stage one of this procedure, it should provide its response to the resident within ten working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. These response timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all member landlords are required to adhere to.
21. The landlord’s complaints policy also confirms that it uses the same definition of a complaint as that set out by the Code; that a complaint is:
    1. “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 resident or group of residents.”
22. The Code also states that when a complaint response is provided to a resident, this should clearly: confirm the complaint stage which it is responding at; provide reasons for any decision made; provide details of any remedy offered to put things right; and provide details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident remains dissatisfied.
23. The resident’s email to the landlord on 28 April 2022 was titled “formal complaint”; however, there was no evidence that it acknowledged it as such. In its response to her the following day it advised that it had “investigated [her] complaint”. This response did not confirm at which stage of the complaints procedure it was responding. Given that it went on to suggest that she raise a complaint, this indicated that it had not considered her contact as a complaint and gave mixed messages about the handling of her complaint.
24. The landlord should have recognised that the resident was making a complaint on 28 April 2022 about its provision of service. It should also have recognised that it had not resolved the issue with its initial response on 7 February 2022. Therefore, it should have initiated the formal complaints procedure on receipt of the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2022. This was a failure by the landlord to act in accordance with its complaints policy. Because of this, excess effort was required of the resident to raise her complaint again on 2 May 2022.
25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2022 but did not specify what stage of the procedure the complaint had reached. It informed her on 26 May 2022 that it would be visiting the estate on 15 June 2022 and would therefore close the complaint. This was unreasonable as the landlord had yet to issue a formal response to the complaint. In accordance with the Code, a landlord is not expected to keep a complaint open until it has completed all proposed works, but it should keep the complaint open at least until it has provided a formal response and proposed a resolution.
26. The landlord then sent an acknowledgement of the escalation of the complaint to the resident on 27 May 2022. This confirmed that the complaint would be considered at the final stage of its procedure; however, neither this nor its previous acknowledgment on 29 April 2022 provided any timescales within which the resident might expect a response. It is vital that landlords are clear about the timescales involved in the handling of a complaint to manage the resident’s expectations and prevent undue expenditure of effort by the resident to chase updates on progress.
27. The landlord, therefore, failed to handle the complaint appropriately, in accordance with its policy or the Code. Compensation of £100 should be paid to the resident to recognise that this failure led to excess effort, uncertainty, and inconvenience for her in pursuing her complaint. This award is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal grounds maintenance.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

29. Within four weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its failures in its response to her concerns about the grounds maintenance.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its failings in the handling of the associated complaint.
30. Within eight weeks the landlord should:
    1. Review its procedures for supervising contractors and confirm to both the Ombudsman and the resident what actions it will take to supervise the grounds maintenance contractor and satisfy itself that it performs in accordance with the grounds maintenance specification.
31. Review its complaint handling procedures and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that complaints are handled in accordance with its policy.