A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202419700)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 July 2024 about her fixed service charges. She said the landlord did not maintain the land near her home and asked what the service charges covered. In its stage 1 letter, the landlord apologised for not maintaining the land and listed the services it provided. These included grounds maintenance, bulk refuse removal, and pest control. In its final response, the landlord said it had not included the land near the resident’s home in the service charges. The resident remained dissatisfied and said it was unfair for her to pay for grounds maintenance. She also said if she must pay, she wants the contractors to attend in line with the contract.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that:
   1. The land by her house was not being maintained.
   2. She did not know what services her service charges covered.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the land by her house was not being maintained.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she did not know what services her service charges covered.

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

Reasons

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.

What we have not looked at

5. We cannot investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process unless there is clear evidence of complaint-handling failure and no action taken within a reasonable time. In this case, we are not satisfied that the resident raised or escalated the following issues at the time of this complaint, therefore, we have not investigated these points:
   1. The contractor’s attendance
   2. Charging for ‘block’ costs when the resident does not live in a block.
   3. A water leak.
6. We do not investigate complaints about the level or increase of service charges. We also do not investigate whether the service charges are reasonable or represent value for money. If the resident wanted to pursue concerns about these matters, she may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the court. We note the resident took this case to the first-tier tribunal who struck it out due to the fixed nature of the service charges. We note the first-tier tribunal ordered the landlord to refund the resident’s application fees.

What we have looked at

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the land by her house was not being maintained.

7. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must pay service charges for grounds maintenance, bulk refuse removal, and administrative fees. We are satisfied that, by signing the tenancy agreement, the resident agreed to contribute to these communal charges. The resident acknowledged her responsibility to maintain her own garden.
8. Fixed service charges are not based on the actual cost of the landlord providing services. As such the landlord does not provide refunds where charges exceed costs, and cannot recover additional sums where charges fall short.
9. The resident stated the grounds maintenance service had not maintained the land near her home for the past 4 years. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to contribute towards a charge for communal services but does not specify the area that the communal cleaning will cover. This is set out in the maintenance contract agreed between the landlord and its contractor.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response provided a clear outcome. It stated that the contractor should have been carrying out grounds maintenance to the land near the resident’s home. The response confirmed the contractor would visit the resident to apologise and to cut the grass. It also confirmed that the contractor wanted to give the resident a £100 voucher.
11. In the resident’s escalation request she thanked the landlord for cutting the grass and the voucher, but she remained unhappy that she had been paying for this service for the past 4 years. She said because the land behind her home had not been maintained it had attracted pests and people had dumped items there which the landlord should have removed.
12. In its final response letter, the landlord said it needed to investigate further. It later concluded that, when the contractor took over the contract in 2021, it had not quoted to maintain the land near or behind the resident’s home. The landlord said this was because the land near her home had gravel or artificial grass. Also, the land behind the resident’s home had been taken over by a neighbour as their garden. It confirmed that the alleyway leading to this land was a fire exit.
13. The landlord stated that no refund was due because the contractor had not charged residents for this land. It said it was unsure whether the previous contractor had charged for this area prior to 2021. As a resolution, the landlord offered the resident a rebate of 5% of the 2020-2021 cost.
14. The final response would supersede the stage 1 response, but we recognise it would be confusing to receive two differing responses from the landlord. We accept that, as no charge had been made, no refund was due.
15. The resident stated that there is a shrub near her home which requires maintenance. She also stated that the land behind her home remains unchanged, despite the neighbour ‘giving it back’. She said the fire exit alleyway remains overgrown, and the bulky items remain and are attracting pests. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered whether it could include these areas in its grounds maintenance service.
16. The contractor’s grounds maintenance specification includes shrub cutting, litter picking, weed spraying and raking gravelled areas. This indicates that the landlord could consider whether it should include this land in the contract. We recognise that including this land would result in a service charge cost.
17. If the land is not to be included in the grounds maintenance contract, the landlord is to confirm who is responsible for the maintenance of it. If it believes the resident is, it should refer to the specific clause in the tenancy agreement that puts the responsibility on her. If not, it will need to arrange for the land to be properly kept.
18. We acknowledge that the resident received a £100 voucher from the contractor. Also, the offer of reimbursement in the form of 5% of the 2020-2021 grounds maintenance charge. We consider an additional £100 payment is appropriate to recognise the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing this matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that she did not know what services her service charges covered.

19. The resident asked the landlord what it included in its service charges. In her initial complaint, she said the landlord did not respond to her request. We have not seen evidence showing when the resident made this request. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said it discussed the matter with the resident. It confirmed that, for the 2024 -2025 period, the charge covered grounds maintenance, bulk refuse removal, and pest control.
20. In her escalation request, the resident asked why she did not receive a pest control service when she had an issue in her home due to an infestation from a neighbouring property. In its final response letter, the landlord said the tenancy agreement made residents responsible for infestations inside their homes.
21. The landlord said the pest control charge was applied for treating a wasp’s nest in the communal areas. It did not apply to an individual property.
22. We find there was no maladministration as the landlord responded fully to the resident’s concerns that she did not know what services her service charges covered.

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.