West Kent Housing Association (202423522)

Background

1. The resident pays the landlord a service charge, which includes a fee to maintain the communal grounds around his property. He complained that the grounds maintenance contractor had rarely attended his estate for 12 months.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding grounds maintenance.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding grounds maintenance.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

Grounds maintenance

5. The landlord failed to provide a grounds maintenance service in line with its estate standard. However, it acted promptly to address the issue and put measures in place to improve the service. It also responded to the resident’s concerns in line with our dispute resolution principles.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its own complaints policy and 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.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. We are unable to decide whether a service charge is payable and whether the amount is reasonable. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider this. We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised.

What we did investigate

8. Under the lease, the landlord must “use all reasonable endeavour’s to maintain the communal areas, including lawns and shrubs. Its estate standards require the communal grass areas to be cut 8 to 10 times a year.
9. The resident told the landlord the contractor had attended only twice in 12 months. There is no evidence he had raised any concerns about the grounds maintenance before July 2024. The landlord did not provide records showing how often the contractor attended during this period, but it did not dispute it had failed to deliver the expected level of service.
10. The evidence also shows the contractor did not meet the service level agreement, which requires monthly grass‑cutting between March and December, and tending to beds and borders in February, May and October. This was a failing and showed the landlord had not adequately monitored the contractor’s performance.
11. Following the resident’s complaint on 31 July 2024, the landlord acted promptly. It arranged grounds maintenance on 8 August 2024 and then carried out a site inspection with operatives on 22 August 2024. It took reasonable steps to complete the outstanding works quickly and ensure they met an acceptable standard.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord showed it had carried out a full investigation. It spoke to its contract manager and contractor and reviewed photographs of the communal areas. It explained why its service had fallen below the required standard and confirmed it had taken steps to improve the grounds maintenance. The evidence shows that, following the complaint, the contractor attended every month between October 2024 and March 2025 in line with the service level agreement.
13. The landlord did not adequately explain the reason for why it could not agree to a service charge refund. It would have been reasonable for it to have set out its position on refunds, and explained this to the resident with reference to the lease and its policies and procedures. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
14. The landlord made reasonable efforts to resolve the resident’s complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles. It accepted it did not provide an acceptable level of grounds maintenance and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused, which aligns with our remedies guidance. It also demonstrated learning from the complaint and set out improvements it would make to its service. For these reasons, the landlord has offered redress which, in our view, resolves the complaint.

15. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how landlords should handle complaints. The landlord’s published policy meets the timescale requirements of the Code (2024 version).
16. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 7 working days and issued its stage 2 response within 19 working days. The landlord’s complaint responses complied with the requirements of its complaints policy and the Code.
17. The responses addressed all points of the resident’s complaint, were sufficiently detailed and provided accurate details about how the resident could escalate his complaint. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

18. The landlord demonstrated a good level of customer service. It was quick to address the issue the resident had raised and took action to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord could have provided us with details of visits its grounds maintenance contractor had made between June 2023 and July 2024. This would have helped evidence how often it had attended during this period. The landlord may consider how it records, retains and makes this information available with reference to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Communication

20. The landlord communicated promptly following the resident’s enquiries and provided clear and detailed responses.