Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202326670)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326670

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

2 July 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 response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance, including the resident’s claim that it was not fulfilling its obligations under the lease agreement.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 1-bedroom first–floor flat in a block with communal grounds. The landlord is the freeholder.
The evidence shows that the resident has been raising concerns with the landlord in relation to its grounds maintenance and other lease obligations for a number of years. The resident has also informed this Service that a family member sustained an injury in 2021 as a result of the overgrown vegetation. This was settled via a personal injury insurance claim.
On 4 September 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He said that:
1. There was overgrown vegetation and nettles impeding access to his property and the dustbins.
2. The vegetation was also attracting vermin and had become a health hazard.
3. The landlord’s failure to maintain the “larger demise” was a breach of its lease obligations.
4. In resolution, he wanted the overgrown vegetation and nettles to be cut back, all overgrown areas to be mowed, and assurance that routine cyclical maintenance would be carried out.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2023. It said that:
1. It was sorry that the area was not up to standard. It would put in place immediate remedial efforts to bring the area back to the expected standard.
2. The area was on a cyclical maintenance programme, and this would be monitored to ensure the work is carried out with the frequency expected to ensure a clean, safe and tidy appearance.
3. The shrub to the front of the bins would be cut back to an acceptable height and maintained on an annual basis in line with the maintenance schedule.
On 20 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the works undertaken were not acceptable. He said that “tufts of overgrown grass had been left, and no attempt had been made to cut back the overgrown bushes”.
The landlord’s records state that the shrubs were cut back on 22 September 2023.
On 23 September 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He felt that the landlord had not addressed his concerns about its obligation to maintain the larger demise.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It said that it was unclear which of its obligations the resident felt it had failed to meet. It asked the resident for clarification and said that it would provide him with a further response.
The resident responded on 21 October 2023 and said that he believed the landlord had continuously failed to “maintain the greater demise”. He said that it had neglected to maintain the open communal grounds, including cutting back overgrown vegetation and grass areas.
The landlord responded on 26 October 2023. It said that:
1. It remained unclear which obligations the resident was referring to.
2. In investigating the complaint it had reviewed the lease agreement and was unable to find any reference to the “greater demise”.
3. The service charges the resident was required to pay included the costs of periodical inspection, repair and maintenance of the communal areas forming part of its larger premises. In its opinion, it was meeting this obligation.
4. With regard to the recent cutting back of shrubs, it was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the standard of work. It said that “harsh pruning” was necessary.
5. It would inspect the area and arrange for any debris to be removed.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s complaint he said that he did not feel that he should have to pay for a service that he was not receiving. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints relating to the level or the liability of residents’ service charges. These are matters for the First–Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) which considers disputes around service charges. However, we can investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about his service charge to assess whether its responses were reasonable, sufficiently well explained, and in line with its obligations.
The resident has made reference to historical complaints dating back to 2021. While these have been considered for context, this investigation has focused on the events from September 2023. This is in line with paragraph 42 of the Scheme.

Grounds maintenance obligations

The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the grounds maintenance of all communal areas forming part of the “Council’s larger premises”. The resident pays a service charge towards the cost of this. The Council’s larger premises is outlined by a map within the lease agreement. The areas the resident complained about fall within this.
The landlord’s grounds maintenance service standards says that it will provide the following:
1. Grass cutting: The grass will be cut every 2-3 weeks during the growing season, up to 12 times a year. Any grass clippings will be removed from paths and other hard surfaces.
2. Shrubs: Shrubs will get a trim once a year, usually during the winter. A more thorough cutback will be done every 3 years to keep them healthy.
3. Hedge maintenance: Hedges will be cut once a year. As per legal guidelines, this will be between October and February to protect nesting birds.
4. Weed control: Weeds around grass edges and along walls and fences will be treated once a year, usually at the start of the growing season.
5. Herbaceous (non-woody plants that die down to the root each year) beds: These will get a yearly tidy-up, including weed removal and trimming back of plants.
Following the resident’s complaint on 4 September 2023, the landlord responded promptly, in line with its complaints policy. It appropriately apologised that the service it had delivered had not been up to standard. It said that it would act quickly to remedy the situation. The evidence shows that it attended the site the following day to cut the grass and a few days later to cut back the shrubs. This was a reasonable response to this aspect of the complaint.
With regard to the other elements of the complaint, the landlord’s response at stage 1 was lacking. It did not address the resident’s concerns that it had failed to meet its lease obligations. Nor did it provide sufficient detail in response to the resident’s query about cyclical maintenance. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code expects a landlord to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have referred to any relevant clauses within the lease. It would also have been appropriate to provide the resident with evidence of the cyclical maintenance agreement. This could have included dates of previous attendance and any estimated future dates. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. This failing caused the resident time and effort in having to pursue his complaint further.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 20 October 2023 was also lacking. Within the response it said that it was unclear on the exact nature of the resident’s complaint. Although it gave the resident the opportunity to respond, it would have been more appropriate for it to have established the complaint definition before issuing a response. There is no evidence that it tried to contact the resident to clarify his complaint. This failure caused further delay and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s final response on 26 October 2023 did address the resident’s concerns regarding the lease obligations. However, it again failed to provide any evidence to support its position. There is not enough evidence for this Service to reasonably conclude that the landlord was not meeting this obligation, but its failure to provide any dates of inspections and maintenance visits demonstrates poor complaint handling. Had it provided this evidence then it may have re-assured the resident.
In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord had failed to adequately maintain the area in question. When notified, it took steps to remedy the issue. However, its reactive approach caused inconvenience to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord failed to appropriately address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This resulted in the resident expending time and trouble pursuing the matter further. A finding of service failure has therefore been made. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that £100 compensation provides adequate redress for the failures identified. This is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy for medium impact failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified within this report. The letter must also clarify the schedule for the future cyclical grounds maintenance.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the failures identified.