Hyde Housing Association Limited (202320809)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about overgrown weeds in the communal areas. He pays the landlord a fixed service charge for grounds maintenance. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised, gave the contact details for the managing agent who provide the grounds maintenance, and offered £100 compensation. The resident brought his complaint to us he said he was being charged for services he did not receive, including bulky waste removal. In its final response, the landlord apologised and said it would remove the bulky waste charge and provide a refund. The landlord increased its compensation offer by £150 bringing the total offer to £250. The resident remains dissatisfied because the landlord did not remove the bulky waste charge or action the refund for 7 months.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about being charged for communal grounds maintenance and bulky waste removal that were not provided.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about being charged for communal grounds maintenance and bulky waste removal that were not provided.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. 

4. In its stage 1 response dated 31 May 2023, the landlord accepted that the communal areas were overgrown. It said it should have acted much sooner. It emailed the managing agent and provided the agent’s contact details to the resident. The resident said he was pleased with the response and described it as “very refreshing.”
5. After issuing the stage 1 response, the landlord emailed the managing agent again on 8 June 2023. It also carried out an estate inspection on 12 June 2023. This confirmed the grounds were “very overgrown and in poor condition” and it looked like the managing agent had “not attended for many months.” We have not seen evidence that the landlord took further action to address the service failure after the inspection on 12 June 2023.
6. The resident contacted us on 17 October 2023, he said nothing had progressed since the stage 1 response.
7. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 April 2024, which we understand he did not receive. The email explained the resident’s responsibility to contribute to the grounds maintenance service charges and the management fee. The landlord forwarded the resident’s service delivery concerns to the managing agent.
8. The resident contacted us again on 16 July 2024. He said the landlord was not responding to service charge emails, but that the gardeners were now attending.
9. The landlord forwarded its April 2024 email to the resident on 2 August 2024. On 30 September 2024, it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint.
10. The landlord issued its final response letter on 1 November 2024. It said it reviews grounds maintenance services and that a recent inspection identified no issues.
11. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states it will complete regular inspections. The landlord has detailed two inspections, the one cited earlier and one on 3 October 2024. The October 2024 inspection report said it did not inspect external grounds maintenance, although it noted the trees were free from problems. This limits the weight we can place on that inspection.
12. We have not seen evidence the landlord proactively managed or monitored the managing agent’s performance following the June 2023 inspection. On 7 April 2024, the resident told us that the gardeners were now attending. This indicated a service provision gap of at least 11 months since the complaint.
13. In the final response letter, the landlord acknowledged it should not be charging the resident for the bulk waste removal. It said it would remove the charge and provide the resident with a refund. On the same day, the resident said he accepted the compensation on the assurance he would not face further charges. He asked when it would process the refund and for confirmation of the amount.
14. The resident chased the landlord on 3 occasions. The landlord acknowledged and forwarded the resident’s email to the appropriate team 2 and a half months after the final response letter.
15. The resident asked for our involvement 3 months after the final response letter. 7 months after issuing its final response letter, the landlord confirmed it had amended the 2025/2026 estimate to remove the bulky waste removal charges. It apologised it had not corrected the charge in the original 2025/2026 estimates and said it should have done this after his complaint.
16. The resident told us he had not received a refund. In the evidence the landlord supplied to us, it provided screenshots of 58 debit adjustments of £0.34. We believe this shows the bulky waste charge refund. As the resident remains unclear, we have made an order for the landlord to evidence its refund.
17. The landlord took 7 months to complete the actions it committed to in its final response letter. During that period, it responded to only one of the resident’s emails chasing progress. This was a service failure. While the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not offer any more compensation, which would have been appropriate.
18. It was disappointing, after such positive feedback from the resident after the landlord’s stage 1 response that the issue was not resolved then. The landlord responded to the resident’s further complaint, but it failed to action its promises in its final response letter.
19. The landlord’s complaint policy states any failure to adhere to the commitments made in its complaints response will result in the complaint being reopened and escalated. We have not seen evidence it did this in this case.
20. The landlord did not follow through on the actions it promised, causing avoidable delay and time and trouble for the resident. We have used the landlord’s compensation procedure to award the resident compensation in the medium level of effort and delay due to the landlord’s repeated failure to address this issue. We have therefore increased the compensation from £250 to £400.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.