GreenSquareAccord Limited (202125886)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125886

GreenSquareAccord Limited

27 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about changes made to the communal garden by a neighbour.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat with shared access to an outdoor communal area, for which he pays a grounds maintenance service charge. The resident has mobility issues and asthma.
  2. At the front of the block of flats, facing the street, there is an area of small bushes. The outdoor communal area to the rear of the building is largely paved but had some tall shrubs with a patch of grass in a section close to his neighbour’s property. In May 2021, the resident reported that his neighbour had “ripped out” the front garden bushes and replaced them with fewer shrubs. At the rear of the property, they had taken over one third of the communal space by fencing off an area to lay astroturf over the grass and had put up their own patio set. The taller bushes had also been removed. 
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2022 and said he had made a complaint by phone the previous week, but had received no acknowledgement or response. He said the landlord had not communicated with him, and the situation with the garden remained unresolved.
  4. The landlord responded at “step 2” of its complaint process on 30 March 2022. It said that it was upholding his complaint and acknowledged the delay in responding to his concerns. It advised the fence his neighbour had erected would be removed within 28 days. It also said that once recruited, the new housing officer would be arranging a consultation about wider improvements to the communal area.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord the following day and explained that it was not just the fence that was causing him concern. His neighbour had erected CCTV and the removal of the larger shrubs had not been addressed in its response. The landlord provided a final complaint response on 4 July 2022.  It said that there had been delays where his neighbour had been granted a further period of grace to remove the fence. Only small loop fencing remained, which it had granted permission to stay. It said that as it had been in regular contact with him, it would not progress his complaint to “step 3” of its complaint process.
  6. The resident advised the Ombudsman that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He felt that he should have been given the opportunity to escalate the matter to step 3 because the landlord had not answered his concerns in full. Since the closure of the complaint, he reports that he has been unable to enjoy the garden, and his neighbour has started to “re-encroach” the boundary back onto the communal areas.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of changes made to the communal garden by a neighbour

  1. The resident first informed the landlord of issues with the garden in May 2021. The landlord responded promptly the same day to his concerns and made arrangements to contact the neighbour to ask for removal of the astroturf and fencing. The resident was kept informed of the landlord’s actions, and was provided with an update two days later. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns was proactive and demonstrated a willingness to address the matter in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord gave the neighbour 14 days notice to remove the fencing and astroturf. However it did not follow up the issue after the notice had expired to see if the situation had been resolved. No further communication was seen between the landlord and the resident about the garden for a further six months. The delay in providing the resident with an update, and following up on assurances that the garden would be reinstated to its original condition was unreasonable.
  3. On 17 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that no specific part of the communal area should be allocated to a particular flat.  It said it would be in touch to consult with residents on wider improvements for the outdoor communal areas, but failed to address the substantive issue. It did not acknowledge that the neighbour had not acted upon its request to remove the items in May and the matter was outstanding. This caused the resident evident frustration and he contacted the Ombudsman for support to raise a formal complaint.
  4. The landlord’s “step 2” complaint response of March 2022 acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns. It assured him that its housing team would remove the fence within 28 days, and that it was still its intention to arrange for a consultation about wider improvements. Whilst this demonstrated a willingness to resolve the issue, it did not go far enough to put matters right for the resident. It provided him with no approximate timeline for the consultation and did not demonstrate it had taken any learning from the complaint. It also did not consider a discretionary payment for the inconvenience caused to the resident in line with its policy.
  5. On 5 April 2022 the resident said that he was “60% happy” with the landlord’s response, but it had still failed to consider concerns he had about the replanting of shrubs and CCTV that his neighbour had installed. The landlord updated the resident promptly on these points, responding back to him on the same day. It said that a consultation would take place in early May 2022 to discuss replanting of shrubs. It advised that the matter of CCTV would be considered separately, which is reasonable given that the resident had not previously mentioned concerns about cameras.
  6. On 14 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. He explained that the new housing officer had contacted him without any context or background to his complaint and had asked him to explain the history of his concerns. This caused him evidence frustration and distress, where he felt his complaint had not been shared with the new officer and therefore not taken seriously.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident and acknowledged that the housing officer had not been given a full handover prior to contacting the resident. It explained that a new notice had been served on his neighbour to remove the CCTV and the fencing. On expiry of the notice, it would arrange a meeting with grounds maintenance to visit the site. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a site visit following the expiry of the notice to ensure that the neighbour had adhered to the request. It was also a good opportunity for the grounds maintenance team to reinspect the area generally.
  8. During the inspection that took place on 22 June 2022, several of the landlord’s staff met on site agreed that the remaining trees in the rear garden would be halved in size and the previously grassed area would have a small ornamental tree planted, surrounded by mulch. There is no evidence that the resident was given the opportunity to attend the meeting. This was unreasonable, given the landlord’s previous reassurances that a consultation would take place to discuss improvements to the outside area.
  9. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the future design of the garden would have on his mobility issues. On 29 June 2022 he informed the landlord that he was concerned the mulch would create an uneven surface which could impact his ability to access the garden. Had the landlord invited the resident to the site meeting, it could have provided him the chance to express his concerns and consider alternative suggestions.
  10. The resident also raised concerns to the landlord that the proposed changes suggested that there was less work for the grounds maintenance team, and asked how this would affect his service charge. In undated text messages seen between the landlord and the resident, the landlord advised that it was “looking to potentially change service charges, meaning residents’ service charges could be reduced”. The landlord’s final complaint response on 4 July 2022 failed to address both points. Furthermore it did not confirm whether it intended to follow up on the proposed wider consultation.
  11. The resident refused the proposed works and as a result, the landlord halted the proposed works it had agreed in June 2022. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it contacted the resident to revisit his concerns on 10 January 2024, approximately 18 months after the conclusion of his complaint. The delay in contacting the resident to address any matters that were outstanding was unreasonable.
  12. In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. It failed to promptly reinspect the property after it had served notice on the neighbours, causing the resident frustration. There was avoidable confusion in its communication with the resident around the time a new housing officer came into post and a full handover had not taken place. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about his service charges and has not revisited his concerns again until recently, and only once it was asked for evidence by the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman encourages early and local resolution of issues if appropriate action can be taken immediately. Whilst the landlord’s “step 1” complaint procedure supports that it intends to resolve matters within 2 working days, having a further 2 steps within its complaint process is contrary to best practice, as highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code explains that when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged at stage one of a formal complaint procedure. A 2 stage complaint procedure is ideal because, as highlighted in the handling of this case, having a first informal step can cause confusion and make the complaint process unduly long for residents.
  2. For example, the landlord appeared to consider the resident’s concerns in November 2021 as a service request, or “step 1” of its complaint process. Reinstating the garden to its original state is not something it could have reasonably considered resolving within 2 working days. Furthermore, given that it was not the first time that the resident had reported his dissatisfaction with the same issue, it was unreasonable that the landlord considered the matter as a service request rather than a complaint.
  3. The resident experienced time and trouble in getting the landlord to accept his concerns as a formal complaint. As a result, this Service had to intervene and prompted the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint on 17 March 2023. It should not have taken encouragement from this Service for the landlord to have acted on the complaint. The delays in doing so caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience.
  4. Landlords should label complaint stages in its responses so that residents are clear on what stage the complaint is being handled at. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident on 30 March 2022 at “step 2” of its complaint procedure, but labelled the response as “stage 1”, causing unnecessary confusion.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord the following day, raising his concerns that it was taking too long to resolve the issue and he wanted to be given a timescale for action. The landlord should have recognised this correspondence as a request for an escalation to his complaint, and in accordance with its procedure, responded to him within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord appeared to send an informal final response from its head of service, approximately 43 working days later. No apology was offered for the delay in updating the resident on the progress of his complaint which was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord said it was “unable to review the complaint at step 3” because it felt he had been regularly communicated with since March 2022. The response was inappropriate and denied the resident an opportunity for an impartial executive review. Had the landlord progressed the complaint to step 3, consideration could have been given to whether the landlord had acted in accordance with its Dispute Resolution Principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”.
  7. The decision not to escalate the matter to step 3 did not demonstrate fairness to the resident, and in failing to acknowledge its earlier complaint handling failures it did not put matters right. For example, the landlord failed to consult its compensation policy and consider a discretionary offer of compensation its complaint handling delays. Furthermore, it did not explain what it would do to ensure that it would not make the same mistakes again.
  8. Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to raise a complaint at the earliest opportunity, and this Service had to intervene. He experienced a delay in responses, and the final response did not demonstrate fairness. By failing to escalate the resident’s complaint to its final formal stage, the landlord prevented the resident a fair opportunity for his concerns to have been reviewed at executive level. The landlord’s final response made no offer of redress to the resident and did not demonstrate it had taken any learning from the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of changes made to the communal garden by a neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted in this report, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £200 for inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of changes made to the communal garden by a neighbour.
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his complaint.
  3. The landlord is ordered to respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact changes to the garden may have on his service charges, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. The landlord is ordered to update the resident on proposals for future consultations with residents on use of the communal outdoor space, within 4 weeks of the date of this report. 
  5. The landlord to review its complaint handling procedure against the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which will become a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024. The landlord to update the Ombudsman of its review within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
  6. The landlord to update the Ombudsman on improvements made to compensation policy and associated staff training, referenced in its correspondence of 29 January 2024. The update to be provided within 6 weeks of the date of this report.