Stonewater Limited (202424991)

Background

1. The resident lived in a flat within a block of 4 flats which has a communal garden at the front and a fenced rear garden. Since the complaint was made, the resident has sold the property and no longer lives there. From 7 May 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that its contractor was not maintaining the garden in line with its service level agreement. She said that the contractor had not attended to the bushes since 3 July 2023 and it had been over 9 weeks since their last visit. She said that the fence was damaged and needed repair and she queried the service charge costs for the grounds maintenance.  

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports concerning grounds maintenance and broken fencing being paid for through service charges.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning grounds maintenance and broken fencing being paid for through service charges.
4. There was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed repairs to fix the fence and removing the excess vegetation. It took the landlord 8 months to complete the required work which was too long. This was outside of its repairs policy timescale of 28 days. The landlord recognised its failings and said that contract issues had led to the rear garden being omitted from its grounds maintenance programme which was inappropriate. The landlord offered a suitable remedy of a 75% refund of the resident’s grounds maintenance charges. It also offered £375 to reflect the impact on the resident of its failings which had caused her inconvenience, time and trouble. This was reasonable and is consistent with our remedies guidance where we find maladministration. This led to our reasonable redress finding.
6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was delayed as it was sent 45 working days from its acknowledgement. This was not in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord offered suitable redress to the resident of £75 for its complaint handling failings which was consistent with our remedies guidance.
7. The landlord considered learning from the complaint. It has introduced some training to improve its communication which was appropriate. It has introduced learning sessions so it can review specific cases to improve its services. It has also increased its staffing to improve its repair service. These were all appropriate actions to take that evidence it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles.

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.

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.

8. Following the resident’s initial report to the landlord of 7 May 2024 and her queries about what the service charge covered up until 28 May 2024, she then raised her complaint to the landlord on 7 June 2024. This concerned the landlord’s contractor failing to complete the grounds maintenance service in line with the landlord’s service level agreement. She also reported the damaged fence during this period.
9. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 28 May 2024 that the grounds maintenance service included grass cutting, weed removal, shrub pruning and bedding, and hedge trimming. This was consistent with the resident’s lease in terms of charges that she would need to pay to the landlord.
10. According to the landlord’s complaint responses the complaint issues were not disputed. We have therefore focussed on the key issues that the landlord identified and additional issues we identified. The key issues were:
    1. Contract management issues – the landlord reported that the handover between its previous contractor and the current contractor led to its old contractor providing incorrect maps which excluded the rear garden. To resolve this the landlord said it had passed the correct information to its current contactor in its final complaint response of 26 September 2024. It also had a site visit with its contractor in July to confirm the mapping which was appropriate.
    2. Poor follow up – the landlord confirmed in its final complaint response that it had not followed up on the commitments it made in its stage 1 complaint response to cut back the overhanging trees and overgrown shrubs, to seed and topsoil the rear garden and to then maintain this on its 2 weekly contracted schedule. We can see that following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 10 July 2024 the resident had to chase up the landlord about the work it had promised to do which was inappropriate. It should have provided suitable updates to the resident, particularly when it was unable to repair the fence due to the excess vegetation. This caused inconvenience to the resident and frustration in having to chase up the landlord.
    3. Delays – it took the landlord 8 months to cut the excess vegetation and to repair the fencing. This was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy 28-day timescale for non-emergency repairs. This was unreasonable. The resident confirmed to the landlord that the work had been completed on 24 January 2025. The landlord confirmed this with the tree works being completed first on 10 January 2025 and the fence work was completed as per the resident’s report.
11. We have also found that there were some inconsistencies in the landlord’s records which we describe below. This would not have helped the landlord to ensure that the grounds maintenance was completed in line with its service level agreement or to keep track of progress to resolve the resident’s complaint issues.
12. Where the landlord’s failings are not disputed, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s remedy is reasonable and consistent with our dispute resolution principles considering the impact on the resident. We also consider whether the landlord’s remedy is consistent with our guidance on remedies and what we would have awarded where we find maladministration. The resident told us that the delays had caused worry and distress that impacted on her mental health. She told us that her dog had escaped 4 times prior to the fence being replaced. This understandably would cause distress to the resident.
13. The landlord offered to refund 50% of the applicable service charges for the full year in its stage 1 complaint response of 10 July 2024. It subsequently agreed to refund 75% of the service charges in its letter to the resident of 12 July 2024 which was reasonable. This would have taken account the resident’s report that the front garden was also not maintained sufficiently. 
14. The landlord offered an additional £150 compensation at stage 1 to reflect its poor communication, time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident and its service failure. The landlord offered a further £225 at stage 2 to acknowledge the additional time, trouble and inconvenience its failures caused to the resident. This was a total of £375 and its records show that this has been paid. The Ombudsman considers that this suitably recognises the impact that the lack of grounds maintenance and the delayed fence repair had on the resident. It is also consistent with our remedies guidance where we find maladministration.
15. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration in this case; however, the landlord’s remedy is reasonable under the circumstances. The Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning grounds maintenance and broken fencing being paid for through service charges. This reasonable redress decision relies upon the landlord following through and ensuring that it has provided the resident with the refunded service charge that it agreed to.

16. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was raised on 7 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 June 2024 within 4 working days which was appropriate. It issued a letter to the resident on 26 June 2024 as it needed more time to investigate the complaint. It said it would respond by 10 July 2024, and it sent its stage 1 complaint response on this date. This was sent within 19 working days of its acknowledgement as per the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code which was appropriate.
17. According to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, the landlord should acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days. It should respond within 10 working days and may extend by a further 10 working days if it requires more time. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. It may extend this by a further 20 working days if it requires more time to investigate. The Code requires an acknowledgement at stage 2 within 5 working days and a stage 2 response to be sent within 20 working days from the acknowledgement. A landlord may extend this by a further 20 working days.
18. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 25 July 2024 within 5 working days which was not in line with the landlord’s policy at the time. However, this is in line with the Code. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2024. This was delayed as it was sent within 45 working days from its acknowledgement. The delay was not excessive, but the landlord should have contacted the resident to extend its complaint response at stage 2.
19. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It awarded £75 in compensation for its delay at stage 2. This is in line with our guidance on remedies as above where we would find service failure. The Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

20. The landlord considered some learning from this complaint which was appropriate. This included improvements to its communication, and it organised training on this which was reasonable. It organised learning sessions on specific cases so it could learn from previous mistakes or cases that it had done well. It had recently increased its staffing to improve its repairs service. The landlord’s actions were reasonable, and they should help the landlord to avoid similar failings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were unclear as to the dates that the grounds maintenance contractors attended as part of its service level agreement. The landlord uses photobook which is a digital tool that helps the landlord to review the quality of the work and dates of its contractors’ visits. However, it has not recorded the dates in the records provided to us. It is vital for landlords to keep full and accurate records to help it to manage its homes and estates and to provide accurate information to its residents.
22. We recommend that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based upon the recommendations set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication was generally more reactive to the resident’s reports than proactive. The landlord needed to ensure that it gave timely updates to the resident to make her aware of the progress to remove the excessive vegetation and tree branches and to repair the fence. It also needed to follow up on the commitments it had made at each of its complaint stages.