Arawak Walton Housing Association Limited (202116152)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116152

Arawak Walton Housing Association Limited

27 March 2023

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:
   1. The landlord’s maintenance of communal grounds;
   2. The landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct toward the resident.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 1997.
3. The landlord carried out ground maintenance work in a communal area at the front of the property between July and August 2021. This maintenance work was part of an agreed resolution to a previous complaint.
4. After the work was complete, the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the gardening works and the behaviour of the gardening contractors. The resident complained that the landlord arranged for her to discuss the works directly with the gardening contractor and further complained that weeds had returned to the rose bed.
5. In its stage one complaint response the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It advised the resident that their staff member asked her to liaise with the gardening contractor to help facilitate the work to her specification. The landlord advised the resident it would make the gardening contractor aware of the weeds issue so they could address it on their next visit.
6. The resident rejected the landlord’s stage one complaint response. In its stage two complaint response the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It reiterated its position that it investigated the complaint and that all actions by the landlord’s staff were made with the best of intentions.
7. The resident brought the complaint to this Service advising that she was unhappy with the behaviour of the landlord manager and gardening contractors. As a resolution, the resident requested that the landlord apologise. The resident also advised that although the landlord has since attended to the weeds, they have not been fully removed. As a resolution, the resident requested that the weeds are eradicated from the rose bed.

Assessment

Maintenance of communal grounds

8. As part of its grounds maintenance policy the landlord should visit the communal grounds twice per month in April to October and once per month in September to March. Part of this maintenance includes the removal of weeds/debris from underneath shrubs.
9. The landlord and resident corresponded in July 2021 and August 2021 about ground works in a communal area at the front of the property. The landlord agreed that it would remove and replace the soil in a central aisle so the resident could plant roses. Approximately one month after the completion of this work the resident complained that weeds were present in the rose bed.
10. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that it would make the gardening contractor aware of the weeds issue so they could address it on their next visit. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
11. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she advised that the landlord did respond to the complaint of the new growth of weeds, however, the landlord had not taken steps to eradicate the weeds.
12. Based on the evidence available, the landlord has complied with its grounds maintenance policy. The resident would like the landlord to eradicate the weeds, however, the landlord does not have an obligation to do so. This Service finds no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s maintenance of communal grounds.

Handling of reports of poor staff conduct

13. The resident complained about the conduct of the landlord’s manager and the conduct of the gardening contractors. This Service is not in a position to make a determination on the conduct or behaviours of the landlord’s staff when there is no conclusive evidence to support either parties version of events. The role of this Service is to determine if the landlord properly investigated the complaint and took appropriate action based on its findings.
14. When a resident makes a complaint about staff conduct, the landlord should investigate objectively, and provide the resident with a timely response that clearly sets out the outcome of its investigation. If the resident’s concerns are justified the landlord should acknowledge the mistakes and take appropriate action to put things right.
15. The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. It states that when a complaint requires formal investigation, it should be conducted thoroughly to establish the facts of the case. With regards to staff complaints, it is stated that “If staff are complained about, they are treated as fairly as complainants”. The policy further states that they will provide honest, evidence-based explanations and give reasons for decisions.
16. The landlord began its investigation by emailing the resident to request specific details of the incidents complained about. For context, the resident replied and referred to multiple issues dating back to 2013. In respect of this complaint, the resident felt that the manager had targeted her by asking her to speak directly to the gardening contractor to complete the ground works. The resident felt that the gardening contractor’s suggestions surrounding the grounds work were coercive and targeted.
17. The landlord emailed a copy of the complaint to the manager to review and respond. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take as it allowed the manager to properly consider and reply to the complaint. The manager replied advising that it was easier for the gardening contractor to discuss the works directly with the resident and at that point in time, she seemed happy to speak with the gardening contractor. The manager further stated that the gardeners were trying to be helpful and that any suggestions that they made were an attempt to complete the work to the resident’s satisfaction.
18. In its stage one complaint response letter, the landlord advised that as part of an agreement to replace the topsoil, so that the resident could plant roses, they needed to liaise with her. The landlord concluded that the manager asked the gardening contractor to liaise with the resident to have the ground works completed to the resident’s satisfaction. This Service finds that the landlord’s conclusion was reasonable. In July 2021, when the manager made arrangements for the gardening contractor to liaise with the resident, there is no evidence to indicate that the resident was unhappy with the gardening contractor’s behaviour.
19. When the resident rejected this conclusion the landlord investigated again as a stage two complaint. At this stage of the investigation, the landlord advised that it reviewed previous correspondence with the resident, reviewed its stage one complaint investigation, and spoke with the manager complained about. The landlord maintained its position that it found no staff conduct issues in its investigation. The landlord wrote to the resident and concluded that the manager’s request for the resident to speak directly with the gardener was made with the best of intentions to meet the resident’s requirements. This was a proportionate investigation into the resident’s complaint escalation.
20. Whilst this Service has no reason to doubt the resident’s feelings, we can only assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord handled the reports of poor staff conduct fairly. The landlord carried out a reasonable investigation with the staff member and appropriately advised the resident of the outcome of its investigation. This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct toward the resident.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s maintenance of communal grounds.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct toward the resident.