Home Group Limited (202345569)

Background

1. The resident complained that he was not satisfied with the standards of grounds maintenance. He was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication with him about service charges.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of dissatisfaction with grounds maintenance.
   2. Communication regarding service charges.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of dissatisfaction with grounds maintenance.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s communication regarding service charges.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of dissatisfaction with grounds maintenance

4. The landlord acknowledged that there had been poor service provided by its grounds maintenance contractors. It engaged with the resident by conducting visits to assess the condition of the estate and provided him with 2 service charge refunds. However, it did not communicate effectively with the resident about the change in contractor. It also failed to attend a scheduled appointment with the resident.

Communication regarding service charges

5. The landlord’s pursuit of service charge arrears was in line with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. Its communication with the resident about this issue was reasonable.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the timeframes required by its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

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.

7. The resident has raised issues with the standards of grounds maintenance on several occasions over a number of years. This investigation has considered the period from 12 months prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint to the landlord’s stage 2 response.
8. The landlord has advised us that in February 2023, it informed the contractor responsible for grounds maintenance that it would not be extending its contract beyond September 2023. The landlord said this led to a deterioration in performance and reduced attendance from the contractor, which resulted in failures under the terms of the contract. In response, the landlord said it increased the level of contract management. It said weekly reviews were held and all sites were visited to make sure they were brought back to the specification required by the contract. We have not been provided with any evidence or records relating to these meetings and therefore cannot comment on what was raised. The landlord has provided an estate inspection report showing that an inspection was carried out on 22 March 2023.
9. The landlord issued a service charge refund of £70.07 to the resident in June 2023. An internal landlord email states that this refund was provided in recognition of the poor performance of the grounds maintenance contractor. Refunds were provided to those who had raised complaints or concerns about the standard of service provided. Providing a refund was an appropriate response to redress the poor service provided by the grounds maintenance contractor.
10. The landlord appointed a new contractor in October 2023. This was an appropriate step to take following the ending of the previous contract and ensured continuity of service. In its stage 1 response, the landlord highlighted to the resident that a new contractor had been appointed. It said he was informed of this in a telephone call with a housing manager on 21 September 2023. It is unclear if the resident was given information about this before this date. The resident had expressed concerns about the standards of grounds maintenance over a significant period of time. Given the resident’s distress about this issue, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to inform him of this change at an earlier point, especially as the previous contractor’s contract was not renewed in February 2023. This may have reassured the resident that the landlord was taking the issues seriously and was taking action to improve the situation.
11. The landlord’s response stated it would request an estate inspection to ensure improvements had been made. It also said someone from the landlord would call at the resident’s property on 24 October 2023 to discuss his concerns. In his stage 2 escalation, the resident noted that no one had attended on 24 October 2023 as he had been advised. The fact that the resident was not informed that a meeting was no longer going to take place on this date was not appropriate and caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
12. This visit was rescheduled for 2 November 2023. Internal emails record that a member of staff from the landlord went with the resident to view some of the areas that he was dissatisfied with. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would meet with the contractor on site to ensure it was aware of all areas that it was responsible for. It also said it would arrange for some shrubs to be replanted and a fence to be repaired. This demonstrated that the landlord was willing to listen to the resident’s concerns and take action to address them.
13. Following the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord provided a further service charge refund of £70.07 for the period of July to September 2023. This additional refund was appropriate to redress the continued poor service provided by the grounds maintenance contractor.
14. The landlord engaged with the resident in relation to his concerns. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken steps to manage its contractors. It has provided evidence of multiple estate inspections that have been carried out since the resident’s complaint. Although there were service failures by the contractor, the landlord recognised this and took steps to improve the service it provided, including offering an appropriate remedy in the form of service charge refunds.
15. However, the landlord could have communicated more effectively with the resident about the change in grounds maintenance contractor. It also missed an appointment with the resident on 24 October 2023. We consider this to be service failure. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £50. This is in line with our compensation guidance for where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right.

16. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord may pursue service charge arrears in the same way as rent arrears. The tenancy agreement also says that payment is due in advance each week.
17. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that a housing manager had contacted the resident on 21 September 2023 to discuss arrears that had accrued due to a shortfall in the resident’s payments. The resident stated in his stage 1 complaint that he was withholding service charge payments as he was not satisfied with the standards of grounds maintenance. The landlord’s engagement with the resident on this issue was considered in a previous section. The landlord issued an arrears letter to the resident on 21 September 2023. A second letter was sent on 5 October 2023.
18. The first arrears letter included contact details and a request that the resident contact the landlord to discuss his account. It also included information on different ways to make payment, as well as signposting support services for residents experiencing financial difficulties. The second letter warned the resident that the landlord would pursue legal action if the resident did not contact it within 5 days. This letter also included information on support services.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that the resident was unhappy with the wording of the letter. However, it said the wording had been agreed by its legal department and was necessary for its arrears collection process.
20. The landlord’s pursuit of service charge arrears was in line with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. Its communication and the letters issued relating to this provided the resident with the relevant information needed to contact the landlord, as well as other relevant payment and support information. The landlord’s communication in relation to this was reasonable.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days of receiving it. A response should be provided within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. Stage 2 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response should be provided within 20 working days from the complaint being escalated. This policy is in line with the Code.
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint the same day it was received. It provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days. This was within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
23. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 30 October 2023 informing him a stage 2 review had been arranged. However, the resident did not receive a formal stage 2 acknowledgement until 10 November 2023. This was 13 working days after the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, which was not in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
24. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 6 December 2023. This was 31 days after the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of an extension to the deadline. This response was not provided within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
25. We consider the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint and to provide a response within the timeframes required by its policy and the Code to be service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord has provided a range of records including internal emails, correspondence with the resident, and estate inspection reports. However, we have been given limited evidence of its communication with contractors. It is important that landlords keep clear, accurate, and accessible records. This will help the landlord to form clear timelines around when an issue has been raised and what actions have been taken to resolve them.

Communication

27. The evidence available to us shows that the resident has repeatedly raised the same issues with the landlord and asked the landlord to take action. Relevant updates would have helped to reassure the resident that it was taking his reports seriously and that it was acting to ensure its contractors were working in line with their obligations. We encourage the landlord to ensure it communicates effectively with residents to reassure them the issues raised are being responded to appropriately.