Amplius Living (202401618)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401618

Amplius Living

08 September 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The ground maintenance service.
2. The maintenance of trees.
3. The replacement of the communal mats.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat with a communal garden.
On 31 May 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. It acknowledged her complaint on the same day. In her complaint, she said:
1. the grounds maintenance contractor had not visited since 25 April 2023, and she was not receiving the service she was paying for
2. she was unhappy it delayed surveying 2 trees in the garden and when it did, pruning them was put on hold due to birds nesting
3. the communal mats were dirty and needed replacing
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 August 2023. In its response, it said:
1. there had been a service failure because the contractors had either failed to attend or did not fully complete the ground maintenance work
2. it was monitoring the quality and frequency of ground maintenance to ensure its residents were getting value for money
3. although it delayed pruning the trees, it had brought forward tree maintenance works from 2025-26 to 2023-24 and this was not a service failure
4. it had no safety concerns for the trees, and they would be pruned after the nesting season finished
5. it was sorry for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered her compensation of £100, broken down as:
  1. £50 for the overdue complaint response
  2. £50 for distress and inconvenience
The resident complained to her landlord again on 14 September 2023. She told it:
1. the grounds maintenance contractor had not visited since 15 August 2023
2. the trees had still not been pruned
3. she was concerned the conkers on the path were a health and safety risk and needed to be cleared
4. the mats had been measured for replacement in August 2023, but had not been replaced
The landlord acknowledged this as a new stage 1 complaint on 21 September 2023 and provided its response on 5 December 2023. It acknowledged that the resident should not have had to contact it again about the issues she had raised. In its response, it said:
1. there had been a service failure with the ground maintenance because the contractor should have rescheduled any missed visits
2. it had spoken to the contractor who told it:
  1. they abandoned the visit in September 2023 due to adverse weather conditions
  2. their last visit was on 11 October 2023
  3. they were going to return within 2 weeks and clear the paths
3. tree surgeons attended on 30 November 2023 to prune the trees, but abandoned their visit due to an incident with members of the public
4. tree maintenance works would be rescheduled soon, with the Housing Officer present
5. the mats were replaced as a gesture of goodwill, agreed with the resident in a historic complaint
6. it was sorry for its service failures and offered compensation of £75, broken down as:
  1. £25 for service failure
  2. £25 for the overdue complaint response
  3. £25 for distress and inconvenience
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 February 2024 and told the landlord the ground maintenance contractor had not attended again. On 14 February 2024 she told it the tree pruning was outstanding, as was the replacement of the mats. Further, she did not feel she was receiving an acceptable grounds maintenance service and asked it to send a different contractor to complete the work.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 14 February 2024 and provided its response on 27 March 2024. It said:
1. it met with the contractor who confirmed dates they had visited between November 2023 and February 2024
2. it was reviewing the ground maintenance service and monitoring the quality of the work
3. there was a service failure because the contractor had not completed all the ground maintenance tasks when they visited
4. the trees were pruned and the paths were cleared of tree waste on 25 March 2024
5. the communal mats would be replaced between April 2024 and March 2025
6. it was sorry for the failures and offered compensation of £150, broken down as:
  1. £100 for the overdue complaint response
  2. £50 for inconvenience
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 11 April 2024 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 30 April 2024. She said the ground maintenance contractors had visited, but they had not completed all the tasks. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 May 2024 and apologised that the ground maintenance was not up to the required standard. It offered her £20 compensation for the inconvenience. It told her that a new contractor was starting in June 2024 and hoped its residents would see improvements.
The resident remained unhappy with the standard and cost of the ground maintenance service and contacted the landlord on 1 July 2024. The landlord logged this as a new stage 1 complaint, which was acknowledged and closed on 8 July 2024. In its response, it said:
1. the new contractor visited in April, May, and June 2024 and delivered a basic service because they had a large backlog of work
2. any missed visits would be rescheduled throughout the remaining months of the year to ensure the full ground maintenance specification was met
3. it told the contractors to focus on specific tasks that remained outstanding on their next visit, which was provisionally booked for 12 July 2024
4. there was a service failure with regards to the ground maintenance service as not all work had been completed
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 July 2024 to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She told it the contractor did not visit on 12 July 2024. She spoke with it again on 26 July 2024 and reiterated her concerns about the cost and standard of the ground maintenance.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 July 2024 and responded on 14 August 2024. It said:
1. that the contractors did not attend in July 2024 and it had asked them for an explanation for this
2. future ground maintenance visits would be closely monitored, and it provided the resident with several dates of future visits
3. there was a minimum ground maintenance standard expected
4. there had been a service failure, and it would remove the cost of any missed visits during the annual service charge review
The resident referred her complaint to our Service on 19 August 2024. She told us that the grounds maintenance contractors did not attend on all of the dates set out in the landlord’s stage 2 response. Additionally, she was unhappy with the cost she was paying for the grounds maintenance service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s complaint, she raised the issue of the cost of the grounds maintenance service. This Service is unable to consider the reasonableness or the level of a service charge. These matters may be better suited to the First Tier Tribunal, or a court, which has the expertise and authority to consider the reasonableness of the service charges and the level of any increase. However, we can consider if the resident has received any service being paid for and whether the standard and level of service was appropriate. We will also consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the service charge.
When the resident referred her complaint to this Service, she said one of the trees was tall and she was concerned it may fall in bad weather. Furthermore, she wanted it significantly pruned. Additionally, she told us there were still issues with the ground maintenance service. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. Therefore, it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response on 14 August 2024.
We appreciate that the resident and landlord have sent in pictures showing the ground maintenance work and trees. However, it is not our role to assess the standard of ground or tree maintenance and decide if they are satisfactory or not. Instead, our role is to assess how the landlord dealt with the issue and the actions and steps it put in place to ensure similar situations did not happen again.

Ground maintenance

The resident’s tenancy agreement shows that she pays a service charge for services which includes ground maintenance. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s Estate Management Policy said to ensure contractors adhered to the set standards, it would inspect its schemes on a regular basis.
The landlord’s ground maintenance contract provides a detailed specification on how communal gardens should be maintained. It sets out that the contractor should make at least 22 visits to every site each year. Typically, this will be once every 2 weeks between March and October, and once a month between November and February. The specification includes, but is not limited to:
1. grassed areas to be cut and maintained
2. litter and leaves to be removed from the communal garden
3. chemical or manual weed and moss control as and when required
4. shrubs, hedges, and borders to be maintained
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2023, the day after she logged her complaint. It told her that due to unforeseen circumstances, the contractor was behind on their visits, but the garden would be up to standard within 2 weeks. This was an appropriate and prompt response as it explained why the contractor had not attended and gave her a time frame for improvements.
Between June and July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord a further 3 times. She reported that the contractor had either not attended, or when they did, they had not completed all the tasks. Additionally, the shrubs were overgrown, grass remained uncut in some areas, and they had not removed weeds and moss. Despite the specification outlining that all grass areas should be cut and maintained, this did not happen. The landlord contacted the contractor within 24 hours on each occasion and asked them to complete outstanding work on their next visit, which was reasonable.
However, there is no evidence it carried out inspections of the garden as required by its policy during this period. Given the frequent issues raised by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself the contractor was meeting the standard. Instead, the resident had to take the time to repeatedly raise concerns. This caused her avoidable time and trouble and was a failing.
On 24 July 2023 the resident sent photographs of the garden to the landlord. The landlord reviewed them on 9 August 2023 and concluded the work was completed to an acceptable standard. Later that day, it communicated its findings to the resident, which was appropriate. While she agreed that there was some improvement to the service, she reported several tasks, such as removing the moss and weeds, were still outstanding. This suggests the landlord did not cross reference the pictures against the standard. If it did, there is no evidence of this.
The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between 10 and 17 August 2023 and reported the contractors had not been attending every fortnight. Rather, they had been attending every 4 weeks. Under the contract, the contractor should visit on average every 2 weeks between March and October. The resident expected a more frequent and consistent service, which was understandable. She requested a schedule for when the contractor would visit and asked for it to carry out regular audits of the communal garden. The landlord considered her added concerns and request as part of her complaint which was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 17 August 2023 apologised for the missed and incomplete visits. It acknowledged there had been a service failure. Given that it had not adhered to the contract, coupled with the resident contacting it 6 times in less than 3 months, this was a reasonable finding. It did not provide a schedule of future visits and said this was because work is weather dependant. Although this was reasonable, it missed an opportunity to give the resident clarity about the service she should expect to receive.
It also said it was monitoring the quality of the grounds maintenance service to ensure “value for money.” However, it did not explain how it undertook monitoring, or why it had not identified the failures sooner. This may not have restored the resident’s trust in the service or demonstrate her concerns were taken seriously. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the service failure, distress, and inconvenience. This offer aligned with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. Both suggest an offer between £50 to £100 where there has been some impact to the resident. This was reasonable and appropriate.
The resident complained to the landlord again on 14 September 2023, just 28 days after it sent its stage 1 response. She reported that the contractors had failed to attend since 15 August 2023, and conkers and leaves needed clearing from the paths. To investigate her complaint, the landlord asked the contractors to provide dates for their attendance over last 6 months.
This would suggest that the landlord’s monitoring of the grounds maintenance had not been effective, despite its policy and assurance to do so. Rather than having records of the contractor’s attendance, it was reliant on them to provide information. Had the landlord kept logs of its completed inspections and monitored the contractor’s attendance, it may have identified the issues sooner. Rather, the onus was on the resident to report problems to the landlord. This was unreasonable and a failing.
Landlords should have systems in place to maintain accurate records and communications. Good record keeping is essential to evidence actions it has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. In this case, the lack of oversight and poor monitoring was not consistent with its policy and would have contributed to the resident’s inconvenience.
Between September and December 2023, the resident continued to report missed and incomplete visits. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 December 2023 and acknowledged that there had been a further service failure. Additionally, an offer of £50 was made in recognition the inconvenience and its failings. However, given the resident first reported issues on 31 May 2023, 135 days prior, the response did not go far enough to put things right. It could have explained how it would monitor, address, and prevent future issues. Instead, it missed an opportunity to assure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 February 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the ground maintenance service. To investigate her concerns, the landlord emailed the contractor on 14 February 2024. It asked them for the dates and photographs of visits from the last 6 months. It specifically requested that they visit and bring the garden up to the required standard. The contractor provided the information on 20 February 2024, 6 days later.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask for this information as part of its investigation. However, the landlord’s lack of knowledge on its own data raises concerns. It is unclear how the landlord was monitoring the contract and how it ensured that the total number of visits, and standard of work was acceptable. This information helps a landlord understand if visits were undertaken as set out in the contract. As the resident had been reporting issues for so long, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to demonstrate how it intended to work with the contractor in the future to improve monitoring and performance.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 March 2024, it concluded there had been another service failure. This was because it had not completed all the required ground maintenance work, but all outstanding work was completed on 25 March 2024. Furthermore, it said that “lessons will be learnt from this.” While not a failing, the lack of detail on what actions follow meant the resident was unlikely to have felt that meaningful change would happen. The landlord offered £50 for the inconvenience caused which is consistent with its compensation policy and appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident sent a further complaint to the landlord on 30 April 2024. She reported the new contractors had attended, but the standard of the work was poor. The landlord responded on 8 May 2024 and apologised the work was not up to standard in addition to giving the resident £20 compensation. It informed her that the contractors had a backlog and could expect to see improvement from June 2024.
Where there have been historic issues with contractor performance, it is reasonable to have a backlog of work. It was fair for the landlord to give its contractors the opportunity to address the backlog before they began the regular service. Similarly, it was reasonable to inform the resident of when she could expect to see improvements.
Despite this, the resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2024 as she remained unhappy with the standard of work. She felt she was paying for a service she was not receiving. It logged another stage 1 complaint and emailed the contractor on 4 July 2024 to ensure that the standards were met at their next visit on 12 July 2024. The contractor responded that day, saying they could not attend on 12 July 2024 as they were training a new, additional team. They would, however, complete the works on their next visit.
Although the landlord knew the contractor could not attend, its complaint response on 8 July 2024 said it would call the resident after their visit. Given it knew this was not achievable, this assurance was unfair and inappropriate. By this time, the resident had been reporting issues for over 12 months. This miscommunication would have further damaged her trust in the landlord and added to her frustration.
After the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 July 2024, the contractor attended on 1 and 2 August 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on each occasion to tell it she was unhappy with the standard of the work and sent it photos. It appropriately added her concerns to its complaint record.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 14 August 2024, it admitted there had been another service failure. There had been no ground maintenance visit in July 2024. It apologised and said that the garden would be brought up to standard over multiple visits between 12 August and 29 September 2024. Providing the resident with a time frame for when the standard would be met was a reasonable step to take to manage the resident’s expectations.
Further, it said it would not charge residents for any missed visits, which was fair in the circumstance, given they had not received the service. It again assured the resident that it would inspect and monitor the garden to ensure compliance with the standard. However, it did not say how or when it would do this. Given the resident had been raising concerns for more than 12 months and the multiple service failures the landlord identified, the lack of detail was unlikely to have reassured her.
In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate that it adhered to its own estate management policy throughout the time frame. It failed to evidence that it monitored the contractor’s performance to ensure that the contractual standard was met. Subsequently, the onus was on the resident to repeatedly take the time to raise issues for more than 12 months, which caused avoidable frustration. This, coupled with the lack of proactive case management further undermined her confidence that the issues would be resolved.
The landlord acknowledged some of its shortcomings in its stage 1 and 2 responses and offered the resident compensation for them. However, it did not go far enough in putting things right. These steps did not demonstrate how it would prevent similar issues in the future. The repeated nature of the issue, alongside the absence of learning or effective monitoring, meant the resident continued to receive a poor service over a prolonged period.
Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance service. In recognition of the time, distress, and inconvenience to the resident over an extensive period, a further order of compensation has been made for £100 in addition to the £170 that has already been offered. The total compensation of £270 is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Tree Maintenance

The landlord’s tree maintenance policy says its contractor will undertake a visual observation of all trees and report any issues to the landlord. All tree canopies should be raised to 2.5 meters on a “regular” basis, particularly where trees are next to pathways or highways. Furthermore, it says it will commission separate tree surveyors. However, the policy is silent on how often, or what the circumstances are, to prompt a survey.
It is unclear when the resident initially raised concerns about tree maintenance. Records show the landlord received a quote to prune 2 trees on 22 May 2023. The resident later complained to the landlord on 31 May 2023 to say the trees had still not been pruned. The following day, the landlord explained that the tree survey identified there were birds nesting. Therefore, it could not prune the trees at that time.
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is illegal to intentionally damage or destroy active bird nests. Guidance from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) sets out that maintenance works, such as tree pruning, should ideally be completed outside of the nesting season. This typically runs from 1 March to 31 August. It was therefore reasonable and appropriate in the circumstance to postpone works to ensure it complied with its legal obligations and best practice. Although the delay would have been frustrating for the resident, it was unavoidable.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that, due to the resident’s historic concerns, it was completing tree maintenance works 1 year earlier. It reiterated that birds were nesting in the trees and work would be rescheduled when nesting season ended. Furthermore, it assured her that there were no safety concerns with the trees. It was reasonable to provide these assurances, though it could have provided her with a clearer time frame for when works would go ahead. This would have given the resident greater reassurance that work would be completed.
Although the landlord has referred to surveys in its complaint response, it has been unable to produce copies of the reports. However, it was not disputed that surveys had been undertaken. It concluded that as work was being completed 1 year sooner than scheduled, there had been no service failure. This was a reasonable finding in the circumstance.
As the resident did not know when work would be completed, she contacted the landlord again on 12 September 2023. Subsequently, it emailed the contractor on 15 September 2023 and told it to book in the necessary work. The landlord should have taken the time to update the resident and plan the works. Had it done so, it would have saved the resident the inconvenience of contacting it again.
On 23 November 2023, the landlord chased its contractor for an update on when it was completing work on the trees. This was 49 working days after it emailed them to book in the works. It is unclear as to why there was a delay scheduling the works and this would have prolonged the resident’s uncertainty. They responded that day and said work would begin on 27 November 2023 and would be completed by the end of the week. Even though the landlord did not update the resident between September and November 2023, it contacted her immediately when it had a start date for the work. Although it could not explain why there had been delays, it apologised to the resident for the inconvenience it caused which was reasonable in the circumstances.
Despite the contractor’s assurance work would begin on 27 November 2023, they did not visit site until 30 November 2023, 3 days later. When they attended, there was an alleged incident with members of the public which left staff feeling threatened, resulting in them aborting the tree work. The landlord launched an investigation into the incident. In its complaint response on 5 December 2023, it said it would reschedule the work at a later date with the Housing Officer present on site. Although delaying the work would have caused her frustration, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the allegations to ensure the contractor’s safety.
More than 2 months later, on 14 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as the trees had still not been pruned. The landlord told her it was still investigating the incident that happened in November 2023. This would have caused the resident some frustration, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to update her if the investigation was taking longer than expected. The lack of communication would have contributed to her frustration. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to complete the investigation and satisfy itself there was no risk of abuse or harassment to its contractors.
Between 20 February and 4 March 2024, the landlord was proactively communicating with the Housing Officer, Tree Surgeons and a security firm to book in the work. Using a security firm to ensure the safety of its staff and contractors was a reasonable solution and demonstrated its willing to complete the work.
Both trees were pruned on 25 March 2024, 6 months after nesting season had ended. Later that day, the resident contacted the landlord to tell it one tree had been cut down and was unhappy that the other only had a few branches removed. The landlord issued its response on 27 March 2024 and confirmed the work was completed and closed the resident’s complaint.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the issue could have been improved. The policy is silent with regards to the managing the height of trees and focuses on ensuring there is a 2.5m gap between the ground and lowest branch. While tree works went ahead, the resident was dissatisfied with the work as one of the trees had not been pruned as significantly as she expected and remained very tall.
The landlord could have been clearer about the work that was being completed on the tree and explained its reasoning for its decision to not significantly cut the tree. While the landlord did comply with legislation and its policy, completing the works a year sooner than expected, it could have managed the resident’s expectations better.
The nesting season and incident with the public were unavoidable and the landlord acted appropriately in both circumstances. While the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience it caused her, it only updated her once between September 2023 and March 2024 about when the tree work would begin. The resident had to chase the landlord for an update as it missed the opportunity to keep her informed. If it had kept her informed, its apology would have gone far enough to put things right. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there has been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the trees.
In considering an offer of compensation we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay the resident a £75 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication.

Communal mats

On 31 May and 15 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that the communal mats were dirty and needed to be cleaned or replaced. Evidence shows the landlord investigated whether it could replace the mats between June and August 2023. Subsequently, it raised a repair on 17 August 2023 to replace the front and back mats. The target date to complete the work was 24 August 2024.
The landlord appropriately looked into her requested, although it is unclear why it took almost 2 months to do so. Nonetheless, on 4 September 2023, the landlord authorised a quote it had received to replace the flooring and mats in the communal area.
When the resident complained on 14 September 2023, she told it that the mats had been measured but had not been replaced. It is unclear what date the contractor attended, however, neither party disputes their attendance. Following this, it spoke with its contractor who confirmed the flooring and mats would be fitted within 2 weeks. The landlord’s records show it rang the resident on 18 September 2023 to share the update, but it is unclear as to whether she answered. In this case, it quickly contacted the contractors for an update and accordingly updated the resident in good time which was reasonable.
The contractor’s repair logs show a completion date of 27 September 2023 for the replacement of the communal mats and flooring. However, this contradicts what the landlord has told this Service. It confirmed that neither the floor or the mats were replaced in 2023 or 2024. Rather, the communal flooring had been replaced in April 2025, and the mats were due to be replaced by the end of September 2025.
Between September and December 2023, the landlord sent several internal emails, querying why work had not been completed. Additionally, it emailed the contractor for an update on when the mats would be installed. This indicates it was reliant on the contractors to provide updates which contributed to the landlords delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable and indicated a lack of oversight of its repairs.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 5 December 2023 identified there had been a service failure. It said that the resident should not have had to chase it to replace the mats. Furthermore, it told her the mats had been replaced and done so as a gesture of goodwill as a resolution to a previous complaint. We are unsure what complaint this relates to.
Though the landlord apologised and recognised its failing, it gave incorrect information about replacing the mats. It is unclear how it satisfied itself the work had been completed. It would have been reasonable in the circumstance to have inspected the work. Had it done so, it may have identified the mats had not been replaced and prevented the confusion. This would have been frustrating for the resident and was a failing.
After escalating her complaint on 7 February 2024, the resident spoke with the landlord again on 14 February 2024. She reported that the mats had not been replaced. Within 24 hours, the landlord identified the mats would be replaced at the same time as the communal flooring, which was provisionally scheduled between April 2024 and March 2025. Although it identified this quickly, it did not relay its findings until it issued its stage 2 response on 27 March 2024. Given how long the issue had been ongoing, it would have been reasonable in the circumstance to have updated the resident with its findings, rather than delay the outcome.
The landlord’s response also failed to provide a clear explanation as to why the mats had not been replaced. Rather, it responded that communal mats are replaced under a wider planned works project. The resident would have unlikely felt that her concerns were taken seriously and were adequately investigated.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service on 11 April 2024. Both parties have confirmed that the communal flooring or mats have not been replaced. The landlord has said it aims to replace the mats by the end of September 2025.
In summary, the landlord provided conflicting information regarding the replacement of the communal mats. Its communication within its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses was contradictory, advising that the mats had been replaced as a ‘gesture of goodwill’, when they had not been. It would later say that mats are replaced as part of a wider planned works project. This inconsistency would have caused the resident confusion and frustration.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to identify the conflicting information and provide clarity to the resident, missing an opportunity to learn from the complaint. The resident had to contact the landlord on at least 3 occasions for an update. Considering these issues and the prolonged delays, the landlord’s apology did not go far enough in putting things right. It is not clear from the evidence if, or when the landlord updated the resident that there were further delays to the replacement of the mats. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal mats.
In considering an offer of compensation, we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay the resident a further £75 for the delays, inconvenience and confusion caused by the landlord’s stage 1 response.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging it. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables it to resolve disputes, improve the quality of services, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
The Code says that if a landlord cannot respond within the given timescales, it can extend complaints for good reason. Extensions exceeding 20 working days must be agreed with the resident.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 31 May 2023, which was acknowledged on the same day. Its acknowledgement letter said it would respond by 28 June 2023. This was not appropriate as the information is not in line with its policy or the Code that requires landlords to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 17 August 2023, 57 working days after it was acknowledged. Evidence showed that, despite it being in regular contact with the resident, it did not agree an extension with her. Nor did it provide a reason for its delays. Had it done so, it would have demonstrated it had adhered to the Code and its policy.
In its stage 1 response, it acknowledged and apologised for its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It offered her £50 compensation for the overdue complaint which was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
The resident logged another complaint with the landlord on 14 September 2024, and was acknowledged on 21 September 2023, in line with its policy. The landlord’s complaints policy says that residents can escalate their complaint to stage 2 if actions have not been completed as part of a stage 1. Additionally, the Code sets out that if one or more part of a resident’s complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, it must escalate the complaint.
Although the resident complained that the trees were not pruned, and the contractors had not visited again, which suggested the problem was not resolved, the landlord logged her concerns as a new complaint. While it was appropriate for it to do so with the communal mats, it should have escalated her original stage 1 complaint. Its approach was confusing and not in line with its policy or the Code.
Even though the landlord was due to respond to the complaint by 19 October 2023, it did not do so. On 2 November 2023, 10 working days after the response was due, it rang the resident and left a voicemail. It told her it was extending the response due date by a further 10 working days. The landlord did not provide a valid reason to extend the response date, despite its policy setting out that it will do so. This was not in line with the Code and not appropriate. It should have contacted the resident and agreed an extension as it was more than 20 working days after the response due date.
The landlord explained to the resident on 30 November 2023 that it was awaiting information from its contractors before it provided its complaint response. An extension of 10 working days was agreed between the parties. This was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstance.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 5 December 2023, 54 working days after it had acknowledged her complaint. It acknowledged and apologised for its delay in responding and offered her a further £25 for the overdue complaint. It was reasonable and appropriate to acknowledge this. However, this was the second complaint that it did not respond to within time. Considering these delays, the resident would have been frustrated. Furthermore, it would have not gone far enough in assuring her that the landlord made meaningful changes to improve its response times.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 February 2024 and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 14 February 2024. It acknowledged this within 5 working days and was in line with its policy. This was reasonable.
Although the landlord was due to respond by 5 March 2023, it did not do so until 27 March 2024. This was 31 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This exceeded its published timescale and was not appropriate. Furthermore, it gave the resident £100 compensation for its failing to respond in a timely manner. While this was a reasonable amount, it had not provided a reason why there had been a delay in providing this response. Given this was its third complaint response, it should have took reasonable steps to address its failings with regards to response time and make improvements.
The resident logged a new complaint on 1 July 2024 regarding the grounds maintenance service. Later that day, the landlord asked her for more information. On 8 July 2024, it acknowledged and responded to her concerns in line with the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. This was reasonable.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 18 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this 6 days later on 26 July 2024, 1 day later than expected. It provided its stage 2 response on 14 August 2024. This was in line with the Code and its policy. In summary, although the landlord gave the resident a total of compensation of £175 for its overdue responses, it repeatedly failed to have regard for the Code and its policy between May 2023 and March 2024. This resulted in continual delayed responses, which would have caused frustration for the resident.
Furthermore, the landlord’s approach to complaint handling was confusing. It logged a new complaint, rather than escalating the resident’s original complaint. This could have prevented the resident escalating her complaint sooner, which was unfair and unreasonable.
Although the landlord apologised and compensated the resident, it failed to adequately address the repeated communication issues. It did not demonstrate that it had learnt from its failings or shown how it had put things right. While it is clear from the evidence that the landlord’s complaints handling began improving from April 2024, the repeated failures and lengthy delays amount to maladministration.
In considering an offer of compensation we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay the resident a further £50 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delayed responses. This is in addition to the £175 already offered for its delays. This makes the total amount of compensation £225.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the ground maintenance service
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about tree maintenance
3. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about replacement of communal mats
4. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £645, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
  1. £270 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in improving the grounds maintenance service
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of poor communication regarding the tree maintenance
  3. £75 for the inconvenience it caused as a result of poor communication and delays the resident experienced regarding the replacement of communal mats
  4. £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint
Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
Provide the resident with an estimated timeframe for the replacement of the mats, and to provide updates on any changes.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. agree a suitable senior member of the landlord to meet with the resident to explain how it will manage and monitor the grounds maintenance service going forward
1. carry out a review of its approach to monitoring grounds maintenance. This should consider but not be limited to:
  1. that its polices and processes are effective for monitoring the grounds maintenance service
  2. that its polices and processes allow it to identify that the standard of works meets it agreed service standards
  3. if any staff training is required
  4. that it its practices are robust in setting out how it will conduct monitoring
Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with all the above orders.

Recommendations

In recent communication with us the resident expressed concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance and the height of the trees. We therefore recommend that within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord meets with the resident to discuss her concerns.
As its policy regarding tree maintenance are silent with regards to how it will manage the height of trees, it is recommended the landlord considers reviewing this to avoid any uncertainty regarding its management of trees.