Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Accent Housing Limited (202315788)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315788

Accent Housing Limited

16 August 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the grounds maintenance.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. In addition to his rent, he pays a service charge for grounds maintenance.
  2. The landlord employs a contractor to carry out its grounds maintenance service. The resident had been a volunteer “green inspector” for the landlord since April 2022, which meant he could carry out his own inspections of the estate and report back on grounds maintenance issues, as well as taking part in the landlord’s walkabout inspections of the estate.
  3. In August 2022 the resident raised a complaint about the grounds maintenance, as he said that it was the worst it had ever been despite the landlord previously advising residents that improvements would be made. However, following a site visit from the landlord, the resident asked to withdraw the complaint to give the contractors a chance to make improvements. The landlord agreed that it would review the situation after a further site visit in October 2022.
  4. On 1 November 2022, the resident raised further concerns about the grounds maintenance. On 17 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the contractor to say that it did not believe it was receiving the service set out in the grounds maintenance contract. It said that there had been a lack of attendance to the estate through the summer months and no attendance at all since prior to the last walk about at the end of October 2022. It requested that the contractor complete a full inspection as a priority and provide a service improvement plan by 1 December 2022.
  5. On 1 February 2023 during a service improvement meeting with the contractor, the landlord said it had not received a formal response to its November letter and requested that they provide a full detailed service improvement plan. It said although there had been improvements in some areas it wanted all sites to be brought up to standard by early March 2023. The contractor suggested this may mean an increase in costs or a reduction in the number of visits. However, the landlord said it had approved its budgets for financial year 2023/24 and was not able to add an increase to the contract. It also argued that there was already high customer and resident dissatisfaction due to poor service delivery.
  6. On 17 March 2023 the landlord sent the contractor photographs of the grounds maintenance and said although there were some improvements the specifications were still not being met. It said edging that the contractor had agreed to complete in January had still not been completed and that residents had expressed that they were losing faith in the contractor. It said it was imperative that the contractor send it its service improvement plan.
  7. The resident raised a complaint about the poor standard of the grounds maintenance on 23 March 2023 but subsequently withdraw that complaint as the contractor returned to carry out the edging. He raised another complaint about the grounds maintenance on 5 April 2023 which was acknowledged the same day and then made another complaint on 12 April 2023 though it is not clear whether the complaint on the 5 April was withdrawn.
  8. On 10 May 2023 the landlord made the contractor aware that a new contract manager would be overseeing the contract and requested that the contractor provide the service improvement plan by 31 May 2023.
  9. In its stage 1 response on 15 May 2023 the landlord apologised for the poor grounds maintenance service. It said following a site inspection on 12 May 2023 it had identified areas that required further action. It said it had agreed a service improvement plan where the contractor’s Operations Director would inspect the estate weekly for the next two months. It said two teams would be deployed; one to focus on grass cutting and the other to focus on maintaining areas such as shrubs, hedges, litter picking & weed control. As the resident had concerns about the likelihood of the 8 week improvement plan being completed on time, the landlord offered to escalate his complaint on 8 June 2023.
  10. On 9 June 2023 the landlord issued a formal service improvement notice to the contractor which stated that if, after 3 working days notice the contractor failed to remove or make good any defective or unsatisfactory work when ordered to do so by the client’s representative, it would have the power to reduce the payment by any amount equivalent to their demonstrable loss and that no payment would be made for unsatisfactory work. On 20 June 2023 during a meeting with the contractor the landlord noted a number of issues, including ivy growing up to the top of flats, bushes and moss that had not been maintained, grass that had grown to thigh height and hedges that had grown taller than window height in some areas.
  11. On 22 June 2023 the landlord issued a pay less notice to the contractor detailing how it believed it should not have to pay the full amount requested by the contractor as they had not met the contract requirements due to the poor standard of service. This included the contractor’s own schedules of work confirming that they only attending once in May when they were contracted to attend on a fortnightly basis.
  12. In its stage 2 response on 29 June 2023 the landlord apologised for the standard of the grounds maintenance service and that it had taken longer to see improvements than it would have liked. It confirmed that the 8-week improvement plan was due to end on 27 July 2023 and that it would like the contractor to be given the chance to complete it. It also offered the resident a meeting with one of the contractor’s new directors.
  13. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was still dissatisfied with the grounds maintenance and the outcome, he sought was for the contract to be ended if permanent improvements were not made. He subsequently asked to withdraw the complaint on 8 September 2023 as the contractor was making improvements. However, he requested that the complaint be reinstated on 22 September 2023, as the improvements had not been maintained.
  14. The landlord has confirmed that it has since ended its contract with the contractor by mutual agreement. The resident has advised this Service that he has concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance service provided by the new contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The contractor referred to in this report has now been replaced and the resident has indicated that he has concerns about the standard of work provided by the new contractor. This report will focus on events from around August 2022 when the resident first raised a formal complaint (that was subsequently withdrawn) about the grounds maintenance provided by the contractor employed at that time, up until the end of the internal complaints process on 29 June 2023. If the resident has concerns about the standard of work provided by the new contractor, he will need to raise these with the landlord and, if necessary, raise a new complaint. If that complaint exhausts the landlord’s internal complaints process and the resident remains dissatisfied, he would be able to contact the Ombudsman about that complaint.  This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme which states  “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the grounds maintenance.

  1. As the grounds maintenance was carried out by the landlord’s contractor, once the resident raised concerns about the standard and frequency of that service it was appropriate that the landlord contacted the contractor to discuss these concerns. Although the resident did not proceed with the complaint made in August 2022 it is noted that the landlord took appropriate steps to contact the contractor to discuss those concerns, and its decision to review the situation after its next site inspection in October 2022 was reasonable, as it demonstrated that the resident’s concerns were being taken seriously and would be followed up with the contractor.
  2. A letter the landlord sent to the contractor on 17 November 2022 confirms that it had carried out an inspection in late October 2022 and taken appropriate steps to hold a meeting with the contractor about the grounds maintenance on 2 November 2022. It also carried out a further site inspection on 16 November and took appropriate steps to inform the contractor about concerns residents had raised during that inspection. The concerns included reports that the contractors had not attended the site at all since before the October inspection. Therefore, the landlord’s request that contractor carry out a full inspection of the estate as a priority and provide it with a full-service improvement plan by 1 December 2022 was appropriate.
  3. The landlord continued to take appropriate steps to try to ensure that the contractor made improvements to the service it was providing. This included, writing to the contractor, holding meetings, making site visits, and passing on resident’s concerns. However, it is clear that after the appointment of a new contract manager on 10 May 2023 it began to take more effective action which included issuing a formal service improvement notice and then a pay less notice. It is not clear why these steps were not taken sooner.
  4. In its complaint responses the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the poor service and for the length of time it had taken to see improvements. However, the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states that it may offer a discretionary payment in circumstances where it has failed to provide services, or the quality of the service provided has fallen below its agreed standards. It also states that it may offer good will payments to customers who have experienced a service failure. As the landlord had accepted that its service had been poor and that the time taken to see improvements had been longer than it would have liked it would have been appropriate for it to have awarded compensation for its failings and their impact on the resident.
  5. It is evident from the information provided by the resident and the landlord that the resident takes great pride in his estate. He has explained how the poor grounds maintenance service made the estate look neglected and scruffy. He also explained that as well as the fact that he was not receiving a service he had paid for, the length of time he was reporting the issue without seeing permanent improvements left him feeling frustrated and angry and he lost faith in the landlord and the contractor.
  6. It is not disputed that despite the landlord requesting that the contractor provide a service improvement plan in November 2022, they did not provide one until May 2023. Furthermore, although there were brief intermittent periods of improvements in some areas during that 6 month time period, no permanent improvements were made within that timeframe (as evidenced by the information within the landlord’s “formal service improvement notice, the “pay less notice” and the meeting it held in June 2023). Therefore, improvements were not made within a reasonable timeframe This has resulted in a finding of service failure. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of service failure where the impact on the resident includes distress and inconvenience, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved, we will be ordering the landlord to award compensation of £150.
  7. During the period assessed it is noted that the resident raised and then withdrew a number of complaints about the grounds maintenance and the landlord acted reasonably by following the resident’s wishes and not proceeding with those complaints. However, it would have been helpful if the landlord had kept more detailed records for each complaint so that it was clear what the outcome was and which specific complaint its stage 1 response in May 2023 was related to. Although the Ombudsman recognises that this may not be something the landlord encounters on a regular basis and may just be a feature of this particular case, we will be recommending that that the landlord keeps clearer records of complaints that are subsequently withdrawn.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the grounds maintenance.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the impact its failings had on the resident, including distress and inconvenience, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
  2. The landlord is recommended to consider how it records information for complaints that are subsequently withdrawn.