Stonewater Limited (202305355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305355

Stonewater Limited

9 August 2024

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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the standards of grounds maintenance.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a two-bedroom house.
On 25 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that since 2020 there had been ongoing issues with the maintenance of the plot of land in front of her property. She stated that the land was overgrown and covered with litter. She requested for the landlord to properly maintain the land or for the land to be gravelled.
The resident made a formal complaint on 7 June 2022. She stated that it had been almost 6 weeks since her request for grounds maintenance and that she had cut the grass and tidied the plot herself. She asked the landlord to investigate her complaint and grant her permission to gravel the area.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 June 2022 and issued its stage 1 response on 27 June 2022. It stated that it sent an order to its contractors to complete grounds maintenance on 6 July 2021. Its contractors did not activate the order so there had been no grounds maintenance service provided since then. It said that it failed to actively monitor the situation and had raised the issue internally so it could learn from its mistake. It apologised for the failure and said it would contact the resident regarding any service charge refunds.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022. She stated that it had been nearly 5 months since the landlord’s stage 1 response and the plot was still not being maintained.
The resident made another complaint on 12 December 2022. She stated:
1. That she last contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022 to report the lack of grounds maintenance.
2. That a surveyor attended her property in November 2022 and said he would investigate her concerns.
3. She had not received any further contact from the landlord until its text message of 9 December 2022 which asked her not to park on the grass verge.
4. She was unhappy about the message and asked the landlord to attend the property to complete the grounds maintenance and to confirm who owned the plot of land.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 December 2022 and issued a stage 1 response on 22 December 2022. It stated:
1. That it owned the plot of land and was responsible for its maintenance.
2. It may be that when its operatives attended there were cars parked on the grass verges and that was why the resident had been asked to remove her car.
3. That the grounds maintenance team visited the area once during the winter and twice in the summer months.
4. That the surveyor would contact the resident to arrange for a site visit next time he was in the area.
5. It apologised for the delays in resolving the issue and asked the resident to contact its customer service centre if she continued to experience further issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 December 2022 stating that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She contacted the landlord again on 24 February 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord had still not completed any grounds maintenance but it had increased the service charge fees. She requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 3 March 2023 and issued its stage 2 response on 17 March 2023. It stated that the resident had informed it that her and a neighbour could look after the plot and pay no service charge. It noted that she requested it reviewed the number of times a year the grounds maintenance was delivered and she would like the matter to be resolved by the landlord lowering its service charge or removing the grass. She also requested a service charge refund for 2021/2022.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord stated:
1. The reason it had not completed the maintenance service to the area of land in question was due to the parking arrangements observed around the property. It said this had caused restricted services to be delivered to the affected area.
2. That the best course of action to resolve the problems permanently would be to remove the small grass area and replace this with a hard surface.
3. This would remove the area from the servicing contracts and allow it to be freely used as required without the concern of damage and poor appearance of the area.
4. It would still retain ownership of the area, but the proposed solution should entirely resolve all the resident’s concerns.
5. It would arrange for its surveyor to meet with the resident to discuss the best way forward with removing the grass and what materials to replace it with.
6. It would review the service charge and update her on any changes.
7. The grounds maintenance contractors should have been visiting the site 19 times per year but regardless of how many times they visited, they had not always attended to the small area.
8. It offered a 50% refund of the grounds maintenance charges the resident had paid over the last year.
9. It apologised for the poor complaints service the resident received and offered £250 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
After the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident was informed that the landlord was unable to install a hard surface in the affected grass areas due to the area falling under a section 106 planning order, which meant that the layout of the property could not be altered.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service stating that landlord had not resolved her concerns and the grounds were still not being properly maintained. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 15 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident stated that she has experienced issues with the grounds maintenance since 2020. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. For complaints for which the landlord issued its final response before 1 April 2024, the Scheme referred to the ‘reasonable period’ as being within 6 months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from 25 April 2022 to 17 March 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
The resident has complained about the increases to her service charge and has requested for service charge refunds. However, paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standards of grounds maintenance.

The landlord states it is responsible for providing estate services which include grounds maintenance such as leaf and litter collection and grass cutting services. The landlord’s estate policy states it would complete maintenance throughout the year but how often it attended would vary based on where the resident lived and the type of property the resident lived in. It outlines that it would attend to cut the grass fortnightly depending on weather conditions. It encourages residents to inform it if they were not happy with the services provided.
Not all residents benefit from these estate services. Residents are charged grounds maintenance fees as part of their service charge where applicable.
The landlord does not give a timeframe for when it will respond to enquiries regarding grounds maintenance but its repairs policy states it will complete non urgent requests within 28 days of reporting the repairs. As that is the case, it is the view of this Service that 28 days would also have been a reasonable period of time for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s grounds maintenance request.
When a resident makes a request, this Service would expect the landlord to attend within a reasonable period of time, in this case 28 days, and keep clear records of appointments and outcomes from such visits. We would also expect the landlord to inform the resident of scheduled visits and communicate the outcome of these visits and any subsequent plans to remedy the concerns raised.
For the purpose of this investigation, the resident made her first report about inadequate grounds maintenance on 25 April 2022. She requested for the landlord to complete grounds maintenance or give her permission to gravel the plot of land. The landlord responded on 28 April 2022 and stated that it would contact her to discuss her concerns.
However, there was no communication from the landlord by 7 June 2022 when the resident made her formal complaint. This was nearly 6 weeks from when it said it would contact her and more than 6 weeks from when she made her initial request for service.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s grounds maintenance request promptly and without further chasing from her. The landlord not responding to the resident’s requests promptly would have understandably made her feel that these were not being taken seriously and caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. This lack of response was a failing and not in line with its policy which states that it would provide updates to residents.
The resident requested for grounds maintenance on 25 April 2022. There is no evidence to show that any grounds maintenance was completed prior to the surveyor attending the property on 8 November 2022. This was more than 6 months after her initial service request.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 8 November 2022 and informed her that he would ask the contractors when they last visited the property and when they were planning to attend. However, the resident did not receive any communication from the surveyor until the landlord’s stage 1 response of 22 December 2022.
Furthermore, the landlord’s records showed that throughout the complaints process, the resident had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions for updates on her request. In her correspondence of 27 February 2023, she asked the landlord to ‘please stay in contact, as historically this has not been happening’. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated; as such, she was constantly chasing it for updates and was unduly involved in the process. This was a failing and not in line with this Service’s expectation regarding how landlords should communicate with residents.
The landlord, in its first stage 1 response of 27 June 2022, accepted that the grounds maintenance had not been completed since 6 July 2021. It apologised and said that it would ensure that it delivered the service and would process any service charge refunds. This was appropriate and in line with this Service’s expectations.
However, it then provided conflicting information to this in its subsequent stage 1 response of 22 December 2022 and in its final response of 17 March 2023.In its stage 1 response of 22 December 2022, it stated that its grounds maintenance team wouldvisit the area once during the winter and twice in the summer. Then in its final response of 17 March 2023, it stated that the grounds maintenance team had not always attended to the plot of land in front of the resident’s property.
The landlord’s records did not contain any entries that reflected grounds maintenance had been completed prior to, or after, the resident’s numerous complaints. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord not keeping clear records was a failing and not in line with this Service’s expectation with regards to record keeping. This Service will be making an order with regards to record keeping at the end of this report.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that any grounds maintenance had been completed as of 17 March 2023 when the landlord issued its final response. It was understandable that the resident would have been upset by the lack of action by the landlord regarding completing grounds maintenance. This was a failing and not in line with its estate management policy.
Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord accepted that there were failings. It apologised, it offered a service charge refund for 2022/2023, it clarified that it was responsible for completing grounds maintenance and it suggested a permanent way of resolving the resident concerns. Although these actions were reasonable, it did not offer sufficient redress for these failings by not awarding compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident.
Further, the landlord made a proposal in its final complaint response to remove the grassed area but it later became apparent that this was not possible due to planning restrictions. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not review its records and check whether the resolution it offered was feasible; it also took the landlord several months to recognise this error.
This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standards of grounds maintenance for the following reasons:
1. Poor level of communication
2. Poor record keeping
3. Failure to respond within a reasonable timeframe
4. No compensation offered for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. In summary, it states:
1. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
2. Its stage 1 response will include details on how to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with its stage 1 response.
3. It will agree an extension with the resident where it is unable to meet these timeframes.
The resident made her initial complaint on 7 June 2022 and the landlord responded on 27 June 2022. The landlord did not agree an extension with the resident. The landlord’s response was 4 days outside the timeframe specified in its policy, this was not reasonable and not in line with its policy. This may have led the resident to believe her complaint was not being taken seriously thereby causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 28 June 2022 and 31 October 2022, informing it that the issue with the ground’s maintenance was still ongoing. The resident then made another formal complaint on 12 December 2022, expressing concerns over the landlord not completing grounds maintenance and parking issues. The landlord responded to this complaint on 22 December 2022. This was appropriate and within its policy timeframe of 10 working days.
However, the landlord should have escalated the resident’s initial complaint she made on 7 June 2022 to stage 2 instead of opening a new complaint for her regarding the same issues. This would have inevitably caused unnecessary delays and distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, the landlord’s response of 27 June 2022 did not contain any information on how the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was a failing and not in line with its policy.
After the resident received the stage 1 response on 22 December 2022, she made multiple requests for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She contacted the landlord on 31 December 2022, 24 February 2023, and 27 February 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge her escalation request until 3 March 2023 and it issued its stage 2 response on 17 March 2023.
This was more than 2 months from when she made her escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. The landlord’s acknowledgement and response were outside the timeframe specified in its policy.
The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and it made reasonable attempts to ‘put things right’. It:
1. Acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication with the resident.
2. Acknowledged the unreasonable delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.
3. Highlighted its errors in relation to how it managed her escalation request.
4. Stated that it was collaborating with its teams to investigate why the errors occurred and had put in place new training to ensure the mistakes did not reoccur.
5. Offered the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
There was service failure by the landlord. However, the landlord’s actions in demonstrating learning from the errors and offering compensation in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance was reasonable and in line with this service dispute resolution principles.
This Service finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standards of grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Provide the resident and this Service with:
  1. A timetable for grounds maintenance for the reminder of the 2024-2025 year.
  2. Information on how it intends to monitor the quality and consistency of future grounds maintenance service.
  3. Confirmation of how it has decided when it will restart service charges for grounds maintenance.
3. Pay the resident total compensation of £450. This amount must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against her rent account. This £450 compensation is comprised as follows:
  1. £150 for communication failures.
  2. £150 for record keeping failures.
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so the landlord must:
1. Self-assess against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information in relation to its record keeping procedures for the ground’s maintenance service.
2. Share its self-assessment with this Service. This assessment should include what improvements have been made to ensure improvement in its record keeping in relation to grounds maintenance.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £250 compensation it previously offered (if it has not yet done so). The finding of reasonable redress for its complaint handling is on the basis that this payment is made to the resident.
Given the landlord has advised that it is unable to install a hard surface in the affected grass areas, due to the area falling under a section 106 planning order, it is recommended that the landlord considers whether there are any alternative solutions, such as improving the parking arrangements, which might improve the situation.