Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202317936)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317936

GreenSquareAccord Limited

14 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance in the car park area.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 18 August 2003. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
  2. On 16 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about issues with grounds maintenance.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 June 2023 and explained it might take up to 20 working days to respond instead of 10 due to increased demand and reduced capacity. It issued a stage 1 complaint response on 27 June 2023. The landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delay due to a high volume of correspondence and cases.
    2. Said it had not managed to speak to the resident on 6 June 2023, so it had based its response on its records and speaking to relevant staff.
    3. Acknowledged that the resident had reported ground maintenance on several occasions and apologised for its estates team failing to communicate with or update her.
    4. Said it completed work on 27 April 2023 and would return on 28 June 2023 to undertake any follow up work required.
    5. Upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for its service failures and any distress or inconvenience caused, and said it was working hard to improve the way it delivered services to residents.
    6. Offered a goodwill payment of £50.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 6 July 2023. In summary, the resident:
    1. Said she had not received a call back after returning the landlord’s call on 7 June 2023.
    2. Said the landlord had completed work, ‘but not to a very high standard’ and with ‘minimal clearing up’.
    3. Asked whether the landlord would fulfil an agreement to maintain the grounds every 3 weeks.
    4. Said the landlord had failed to maintain the grounds and car park for 20 years.
    5. Highlighted the time taken to deal with the complaint.
    6. Said it was unacceptable to wait months for work to be done, and only after sending emails.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the standard of work carried out and apologised for this. It said it had taken photographs to evidence work completed to a good standard on 18 July 2023, which it intended to finish on 19 July 2023.
    2. Apologised for failing to provide clarity regarding the frequency of visits and confirmed these should have been, and would be, on a 3-week cycle. It said staff absence had impacted this and that it was working hard to ensure it met its obligations, which it would monitor daily.
    3. Said it did not start to maintain the area until 2021, as this had not been on its schedule until after a comment made at a customer panel meeting that year. It explained that it found the area was not on its original plans and that the electronic maps it held did not show there were any hedges or trees to maintain.
    4. Said it had not charged for a service the resident did not receive and apologised for leaving the area ‘unkempt’, which would have impacted the resident’s enjoyment and use of the communal space.
    5. Apologised for failing to address the resident’s concerns and respond to her complaint promptly.
    6. Increased its goodwill offer to £150 to recognise the delay and numerous occasions that the resident had contacted it.
    7. Upheld the complaint due to its lack of communication and the length of time it had left the resident waiting.
    8. Confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if they remained unhappy.
  6. The resident referred their complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 July 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 28 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is because, over time, it becomes increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address the issues raised. This assessment has therefore focussed on the 12-month period between the resident raising her complaint on 16 May 2023 and the landlord’s stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.

Policies and procedures

  1. Clause 3.4 of the tenancy confirmed the tenant was responsible for keeping garden, parking areas, paving and other communal areas clean, tidy and free of any obstruction.
  2. Clause 3.12 of the tenancy confirmed the tenant was responsible for maintaining and keeping tidy any garden, yard or other provided area associated with the premises, including cutting grass, trimming trees, hedges and bushes.
  3. In its stage 2 response dated 21 July 2023, the landlord explained that the issue of grounds maintenance had been raised during a customer panel meeting in 2021. It said, after the meeting, it investigated and concluded that it should have been maintaining the grounds as part of its schedule. The landlord found the area was not on the original plans it received. An internal email dated 14 June 2021 noted that electronic maps confirmed its ownership but did not show there were hedges or trees to maintain, which was why the area was not on its schedule. It confirmed it started maintaining the grounds in 2021, after adding this to its schedule. However, it is unclear when, prior to 2021, the landlord took on the maintenance responsibilities outlined in clauses 3.4 and 3.12 of the original tenancy.
  4. A new Neighbourhood Community Policy came into effect in March 2024, which outlines the landlord’s responsibilities to take a proactive approach to maintain neighbourhoods so they are clean, safe, secure places to live, covering both internal and external communal areas. The policy states the landlord will ensure there is a planned cycle of grounds maintenance for communal gardens and that it will undertake regular inspections. This also includes how residents can provide feedback.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance in the car park area

  1. On 21 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to state it had last cleared the communal car park and grounds on 20 March 2023 despite promising during the visit that it would attend every 15 working days.
  2. Neither party had provided any evidence of the landlord’s agreement to maintain the grounds every 3 weeks at this point. The landlord appears to have taken over the tenancy when acquiring the property due to a merger.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord3 more times about maintaining the grounds before raising a complaint on 16 May 2023.The landlord investigated the complaint and, in its stage 1 response dated 27 June 2023, informed the resident of works carried out on 27 April 2023, which it intended to complete on 28 June 2023.
  4. The resident responded to dispute the quality of work, which she said was ‘not to a very high standard’ and ‘with minimal clearing up’ afterwards. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed it would maintain the grounds on a 3-week cycle. It also confirmed it had arranged to receive daily updates to monitor compliance of the visit cycle.
  5. Overall, we consider the landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident of the works it had completed and those it planned to complete so that the resident was aware of its intentions. We are also satisfied that the landlord demonstrated learning from the resident’s complaint by confirming how it planned to monitor its 3-weekly grounds maintenance. However, the resident had to contact the landlord 3 more times after raising her concerns on 21 April 2023 before then having to complain to get a response. We consider that the lack of response from the landlord are failures, which prompted the resident to complain and caused her further inconvenience.
  6. Also, in her correspondence with the landlord, the resident referred to the landlord leaving ‘debris’ and ‘cutting a small patch of grass with a strimmer’. An internal landlord email dated 30 June 2023 confirmed it would visit when in the area to sweep any debris as well as cut back hedges that encroached pavements and car parking spaces. It said the landlord planned to cut back the hedges in the winter period. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of these plans, which we consider is a failing. If the landlord had informed the resident of the works it intended to complete on a regular basis, this might have provided reassurance to the resident that it had a plan that it could then use to monitor compliance of the work completed.
  7. Due to its lack of communication and the length of time the resident had been waiting, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about its maintenance of the grounds. It offered £150 compensation for the delay and numerous occasions the resident had contacted it about this issue. We consider £150 reasonable redress to recognise the landlord’s failings in response to the resident’s concerns about its grounds maintenance. This amount falls in line with the landlord’s discretionary compensation and our remedies guidance, in recognition of failings that have adversely affected a resident but without any permanent impact.
  8. It is recommended that the landlord confirms to the resident the nature and frequency of the grounds maintenance work it will carry out and how it will monitor compliance. If the resident is concerned about the landlord not meeting its obligations in the future, she will need to raise this as a new complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 16 May 2023. The landlord has not provided a copy of this, which appears to an indicate an issue with its record keeping.
  2. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have spoken to the resident within 2 working days and provided its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 June 2023. It unsuccessfully tried to talk to the resident on 6 June 2023, which was 14 working days later than outlined in its complaints policy and is a failing. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 27 June 2023. The resident says she returned the landlord’s call on 7 June 2023 and asked an advisor to pass on a message. Although this could be another indication of an issue with the landlord’s record keeping, neither party has provided any evidence of this call.
  4. In its stage 1 acknowledgement, the landlord explained it would usually respond within 10 working days but might take up to 20 working days due to an increased demand on its service and a reduced capacity to deal with this. It said it would reply by 29 June 2023. The delayed response was not line with its complaints process, which is a failing. However, we consider the landlord acted reasonably to manage the resident’s expectations by forewarning of a delay and responding within the timeframe that it stated.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 6 July 2023.
  6. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response within 10 working days, which it did on 20 July 2023. The resident replied on 21 July 2023 to highlight errors regarding dates specified in the landlord’s response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reply before investigating further and issuing another response, dated 1 August 2023, in which it apologised for its errors. We consider the incorrect information contained in the stage 2 response is a further failing, which prompted the resident to contact the landlord again and caused further inconvenience.
  7. The resident experienced a delay of 14 working days in the landlord trying to phone her after receiving her complaint and a further delay in it issuing a stage 1 response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on time, but this contained errors that caused the resident to contact it again to dispute the dates quoted. This caused the landlord to issue a further response clarifying the earlier stage 2 response and therefore prolonging the complaints journey for the resident. These delays and errors represent a service failure that would likely have frustrated the resident and caused inconvenience, for which we have made an order for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance in the car park area.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
    2. Pay £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.

Recommendations

  1. As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, the landlord should pay the £150 compensation offered to the resident if it has not already done so.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord confirms to the resident the nature and frequency of the grounds maintenance work it will carry out and how it will monitor compliance.