Stonewater Limited (202324687)

Background

1. On 13 March 2023, the landlord notified the resident that the grounds maintenance service charge would increase from £1.85 to £4.28 per week. The resident asked for a breakdown of costs. She subsequently raised concerns with the level and frequency of the service, following a change of contractor on 5 April 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:

a.             An increase in the level of grounds maintenance service charge.

b.             The resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance service provided. 

c.             The handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint about an increase in the level of ground maintenance service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:

a.             The resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance service provided. 

b.             The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

An increase in the level of grounds maintenance service charge

5. We are unable to investigate the resident’s concerns about the level and increase, of the service charges in accordance with our scheme rules.

The resident’s concerns about the ground maintenance service provided

6. The landlord recognised that the level of grounds maintenance service provided was not an acceptable standard due to a change in its contractor. It took appropriate steps to monitor and improve the service. It offered proportionate compensation at the time of the stage 2 response on 8 June 2023.
7. The landlord did not sufficiently investigate the resident’s reports of grounds maintenance issues between 8 June 2023 and 19 January 2024.
8. The landlord is not obliged to provide a breakdown of how the service charge is calculated as it Is a fixed service charge.

Complaint handling

9. There were delays in the complaint response, which the landlord did not recognise until significantly after the final response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

10. We do not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As such we will not investigate the element of the complaint relating to the increase in the ground maintenance service charge. We will also not investigate whether the service or the costs of works are ‘reasonable’ or whether the service or works provide value for money.
11. If the resident wanted to pursue her concerns about these matters, she may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

What we did not investigate

12. The resident has raised additional concerns with the landlord’s handling of garden maintenance, including the contractors not attending in the winter months, which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
13. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident raised a new complaint on 4 February 2024, but there is no evidence this completed the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, we cannot investigate this issue. If she remains dissatisfied, the resident should pursue the complaint with the landlord.

What we investigated

14. The tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is required to pay a service charge and the charges will be reviewed as part of the rent review. The 2023 rent and service charge review letter states the resident pays for grounds maintenance and the service charges are fixed. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 13 March 2023 advising that the grounds maintenance service charge had increased from £1.85 to £4.28.
15. In her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to provide details of ground maintenance costings to show how the £4.28 service charge was calculated. As the resident has a fixed service charge, the landlord is not obliged to provide a breakdown of how it is calculated. For fixed service charges, the landlord is unable to adjust the amount once the actual cost is known, so it is entitled to rely on an estimate of the expected costs when setting the level of service charge. However, it is noted that the resident repeatedly requested a breakdown of costs, so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm the information it was required to provide. This would have better managed the resident’s expectations and reduced the time and effort she incurred chasing the matter.
16. The resident also raised concerns about the standard and frequency of the ground maintenance service. The landlord’s estate services leaflet states between March and October, it will complete grass cutting, weed, algae and moss control, hedges, shrubs and rosebushes, summer bed and container preparation, hanging basket preparation, and tree maintenance. It notes that grass cutting should be completed fortnightly. In the winter months it will provide a basic service including leaf collection and general maintenance of areas. It will provide cleaning services throughout the year including leaf and litter collection.
17. A new contractor was appointed to complete grounds maintenance on 5 April 2023. In its complaint response on 8 June 2023, the landlord recognised that the service was not at the expected level. It said that it can take time to embed the service when a new contractor is instated. It explained this was due to clarifying boundaries and the transfer from the previous contractor. It added that it was the height of grass cutting season, there had been several bank holidays, and machinery had broken on a previous visit. It confirmed the service would be bi-weekly once the contract was stabilised. It would continue to work with the contractor and visit the block to assess the standard of service. It was reasonable that the landlord investigated the reports, provided clear reasons for the shortcomings in the service, and explained how it would monitor the improvement.
18. On 26 June 2023, the resident reported ongoing ground maintenance issues and said the contractor had only attended 3 times since the start of the contract in April. She said the contractor did not attend until 6 June 2023, despite the landlord assuring in the complaint response that it would attend the week commencing 29 May 2023. Although it was not an extensive delay, the landlord should monitor any complaint resolutions to completion, as failure to do so can impact the resident’s trust in the landlord. On 2 August 2023, the resident said that the contractor had not attended since 10 July 2023.
19. In its complaint response on 22 August 2023 the landlord said the contractor was visiting fortnightly until 7 August 2023, when the visit was delayed by 3 weeks. This response does not align with the resident’s reports. If the landlord disputed the resident’s account of events, it should have confirmed the dates the contractor attended. There is insufficient evidence to confirm it correctly fulfilled the grounds maintenance contract, as it has not provided evidence of attendance prior to September 2023.
20. The landlord should keep a robust record of works including grounds maintenance. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. This will enhance its ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise and enable it to provide documentary evidence showing how the work has been completed to a satisfactory standard. Further to this, the Service’s knowledge and information management spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
21. In her second complaint, the resident asked the landlord how it monitored the work to ensure it was completed in line with the contract. In its stage 1 response, the landlord sent her the estate services photobook to show how it judges the standard of grounds maintenance. This was helpful to demonstrate the level of service the resident should expect. However, it did not address her queries about how it monitored the contractor’s attendance.
22. The resident subsequently requested dates the contractor attended, particularly between April and July, due to her ongoing concerns that the landlord had not been monitoring attendance. In the stage 2 response on 19 January 2024, the landlord said it uses an online portal to monitor attendance of contractor, it frequently visits the site, it completes a monthly review of any calls reporting dissatisfaction with the contractors, and it employs mobile associates to assess the communal services. These steps were appropriate and in line with the best practice guidance for monitoring estate services, as set out in the Service’s insight report on service charges.
23. However, there is no evidence that the landlord confirmed the dates the contractor attended, as requested by the resident. The Ombudsman has also not had sight of this information. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate it has properly fulfilled the grounds maintenance contract, for which the resident pays a service charge. Such information should be readily available to provide.
24. Overall, it is not disputed that there were issues with the level and frequency of grounds maintenance service. In its complaint response on 8 June 2023, the landlord offered £125 compensation to recognise that the service the resident paid for was not being completed to a suitable standard. This exceeded the service charge the resident paid for grounds maintenance from April 2023, when the issues arose, until the time of the response. The additional compensation was reasonable to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident.
25. However, the landlord has not since reviewed whether additional compensation is warranted, despite not being able to evidence that it completed grounds maintenance in line with the schedule. The landlord should review its records, confirm dates the contractor attended between 8 June 2023 and 19 January 2024, and reimburse the resident if it cannot evidence it attended at the agreed intervals.
26. Following the completion of the complaint, the landlord told us that it commenced a review project in May 2024, to improve how it monitors the standard and consistency delivered by its contractors. It introduced several changes including a customer reporting portal, an estate service contactors portal, monthly reports, estate surveys, escalation process, additional training, and a community champions programme. It also reduced the size of the contractor areas with newly appointed localised contractors responsible for smaller lot areas. This demonstrates the landlord took the concerns seriously and took steps to improve its overall service, record keeping, and monitoring.

27. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to both complaint stages within 10 working days. If it cannot meet the timeframes, it will notify the resident of the extended response timeframe and keep them updated. If it needs longer than a further 10 working days, it will agree the extension deadline with the resident.
28. The resident initially raised a complaint on 10 March 2023. The landlord sent its response on 26 April 2023. This exceeded its response timeframe by 22 working days. It was reasonable that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations as it advised her on 24 March 2023 that it required additional time to investigate the complaint. However, it still exceeded a further 10 working days and did not contact the resident to arrange a further extension, which was unreasonable.
29. It is unclear when the resident requested to escalate the complaint, but the landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgment on 26 May 2023. It is vital that the landlord retains all complaint correspondence to provide an audit trail. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 June 2023. From the evidence provided, it appears it responded within a reasonable timeframe. However, without a copy of the original complaint escalation we cannot be certain.
30. The resident raised a further complaint on 4 August 2023, which the landlord responded to at stage 1 on 22 August 2023. This slightly exceeded the response timeframe by 2 working days. The resident chased the complaint on 20 September 2023, 6 October 2023, 23 October 2023, and 30 October 2023, before the landlord confirmed the complaint response had already been issued and re-sent it. We do not have sufficient evidence to confirm whether the landlord was responsible for the resident not initially receiving the response, but there were several missed opportunities to resolve the issue at an earlier time. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase 4 times before getting a reply and the landlord resending the complaint response.
31. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 31 October 2023, and the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint the following day. As she had not received a response, the resident contacted the Service and on 11 January 2024 we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint. The landlord then sent the stage 2 response on 19 January 2024. This exceeded the response timeframe by 34 working days, which was an unreasonable delay.
32. The landlord did not recognise the delays in its complaint handling within the final response, but it later reviewed the case on 1 August 2024 once it was referred to the Housing Ombudsman. It offered £115 comprised of £25 for failing to follow the complaints policy, £40 for not providing a response within the timeframes, and £50 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. The compensation offered is proportionate to the level of failing.
33. However, the Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined when the landlord failed to put things right during the internal complaint procedure. In this case, there was a missed opportunity to resolve this element of the complaint at an earlier stage, and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address the issue. The issue likely would have remained unresolved if the landlord was not prompted to reconsider its position following referral to the Ombudsman. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord should ensure it retains clear, accessible records of services provided.