Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202332190)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s maintenance of the communal car park for the property. She said potholes and weeds were making the area unsafe and unsightly. She felt her service charges were not being used effectively.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of maintenance issues in the communal car park
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of maintenance issues in the communal car park
   2. no maladministration in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The maintenance of the communal car park

4. The landlord communicated poorly with the resident before she made her complaint. It was slow to respond to the resident’s reports of potholes in the car park but acknowledged this and resolved the issue. It gave clear explanations for its approach to weeding and service charges.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord gave complaint responses that set out actions and explained its position clearly.

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.

6. The resident reported ongoing issues with potholes in the communal car park on 25 November 2022 and 7 December 2022. She asked the landlord for updates on when it would be repairing the potholes. The landlord spoke to the resident directly during this period and recorded her reports internally. This was positive and showed it had a system in place to progress the reports. However, it did not provide her with clear or timely updates on what action it would take, when repairs were likely to be completed, or why there was a delay.
7. The resident said in her stage 1 complaint that the potholes were getting worse. The landlord called her to discuss her concerns further and it recorded on 21 June 2023 that works had started on the potholes but remained incomplete. In its stage 1 response on 29 June 2023, it acknowledged that the repairs remained incomplete but that it would finish the work soon. It logged the repairs as fully complete on 30 June 2023, 148 working days after her original report in November 2022. This was outside the timeframe of 28 calendar days for routine repairs set out in its Repairs Policy.
8. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failings in resolving the issue with potholes and made a plan to address them. It showed that it was taking the complaint seriously and using it as an opportunity to learn, despite the impact of earlier delays and lack of communication. It ultimately completed the repairs to a good standard. The resident did not bring more concerns about the potholes in her stage 2 escalation.
9. The resident also raised concerns about the management of plants and weeds in the car park. She said the weeds were unsightly and the grass and hedges were not being maintained regularly. She felt that she was not getting value from the service charge she was paying for grounds maintenance.
10. The landlord’s explanation of service charges in the resident’s occupancy agreement says the grounds maintenance service charge includes mowing grass, pruning shrubs, cutting hedges, tending flower beds and weed spraying. Its website says it conducts these things at different times throughout the year to reduce the impact on wildlife. It says it leaves some areas of grass long to promote wildflower growth and it will try to keep weed spraying to a minimum to lessen the impact on wildlife.
11. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response on 29 June 2023 that its maintenance team had deliberately left a small area around the base of trees unmown to reduce the risk of damage to the trees. It also said it was in the interest of the environment to leave some areas unmown. This was reasonable and showed it was acting in line with its policy while also acknowledging the resident’s frustration.
12. The landlord told the resident on 5 October 2023 that it had spoken with its grounds maintenance team and confirmed the service charge covered the scheduling of 2 weed sprays per year. It also said it chose to conduct additional sprays in addition to these based on need but that it could not spray the same area twice within 3 months of the last spray. It explained this was due to the risk of sterilising the land.
13. The landlord used its records to show it had conducted sprays on 22 February 2023 and 6 June 2023 in line with its schedule. The landlord committed to completing another weed spray as soon as weather permitted as 3 months had now elapsed since its last spray. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed that it was being flexible with its policy to allow additional weed treatment in response to the resident’s complaint. It gave a clear explanation of its approach to grounds management.
14. The resident also complained that residents had been using a space in the hedges on the bank of the car park as a shortcut which left it unsightly. The landlord committed to planting a new shrub to fill the gap but made clear in it stage 1 response on 29 June 2023 that it would not do this until later in the year due to weather. This was reasonable and showed it wanted to complete an effective repair of the issue.
15. The landlord logged the planting of a new shrub on the bank on 2 November 2023. It acknowledged in its records that there was still a risk that the shrub could be damaged by continued foot traffic. This was a reasonable timeframe for completing the planting and showed that it stuck to the commitment made at stage 1.
16. The resident said the landlord’s communication had been poor leading up to the complaint. She said her emails did not get responses and she raised the issue regularly but nothing had progressed. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 29 June 2023 that it recognised it had taken some time to provide her with a response to her questions about the maintenance of the car park and apologised for this.
17. In the landlord’s Repairs Policy, it says it will provide easy access for residents to report repair issues across multiple channels. It says it will stay in touch and update residents on the progress of their repairs. The landlord’s ‘Our Commitment’ statement says residents can expect to feel listened to and treated with respect.
18. It was unreasonable that the resident had been asking the landlord for updates on the maintenance of the communal car park for several months before her complaint but had not received a clear response. She faced ongoing uncertainty as a result of its inconsistent communication. Though it improved its communication once she complained, its apology did not go far enough. It did not show that it fully understood its failure to meet its policy commitments, or how the lack of clear and timely communication had left the resident uncertain and repeatedly chasing for answers over several months. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble which could have been avoided with clearer updates.
19. We have ordered compensation to be paid to the resident to reflect the time and trouble she faced chasing the landlord for updates on the car park. This has been considered in line with its Discretionary Compensation Policy and our own Compensation Guidance.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
21. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord gave its stage 1 response within 13 working days (12 June 2023 to 29 June 2023) which was not in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord gave its stage 2 response within 13 working days (9 October 2023 to 25 October 2023) which was in line with the 20 days the Code allows
22. The landlord gave clear responses at both stages of the complaints process. It explained its investigation process, gave reasons for its position on the issues presented and made reasonable commitments to address any ongoing problems. This helped manage expectations and bring clarity to the complaint.
23. The landlord was a few working days late in providing its stage 1 response. While this was a minor failure, the impact on the resident was minimal. The landlord remained engaged with the issues, provided a clear response once issued, and progressed the complaint appropriately through both stages. As the rest of its complaint handling was at a good standard, this is an observation only and does not change the finding of no maladministration.

Learning

24. The landlord took learning from the complaint procedure and showed it was reflecting on its failings. It could consider whether completing repairs within its published timelines may have reduced the need for the resident to pursue the matter through the complaints process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord kept clear records and used them effectively in its complaint responses. It could consider whether it had sufficiently robust procedures in place after the initial reports of potholes to ensure reports were progressed promptly and not left unresolved.

Communication

26. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent. It acknowledged reports of maintenance issues but was not consistent in providing clear responses or updates. It could reflect on its approach to the reports and whether her experience improved once it began contacting her more regularly.