London Borough of Brent (202524424)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with access to a communal garden. He was unhappy that no grounds maintenance services had been carried out since the beginning of the growing season in 2025 and raised a complaint in May 2025. Following the complaints process, he remained unhappy with the compensation offered and the lack of action from the landlord in completing the grounds maintenance works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the grounds maintenance to the communal garden.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance of the communal garden.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

6. The landlord is responsible for maintenance of the communal garden for which the resident pays a service charge. On its website, it confirms that the growing season is from March to October every year and this is when services will take place.
7. In his complaint, the resident asked why the grass had not been cut. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the delay occurred because the contractor needed a new key to access the garden. It said it would issue the key and resume the service before the end of May 2025. This did not happen. The resident escalated his complaint due to the landlord’s inaction.
8. In both complaint responses, the landlord gave the same reason for the delay, stating that a new key was required. It knew how to resolve the issue and had been aware of it since March 2025 following the resident’s reports. The issue remained unresolved in July 2025, when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This 4-month delay was unreasonable. There was no evidence to show it was unavoidable.
9. As part of the complaint resolution, the resident requested a schedule of contractor visits and a plan showing how the landlord would ensure adherence. After the stage 2 response, the landlord sent the schedule. It did not explain how it would monitor compliance. It also failed to monitor the works. This was a significant omission which has still not been addressed.
10. Both the landlord and the resident confirmed that, as of 5 May 2026, no grounds maintenance had taken place in the rear garden. The landlord said this was because it had not resolved the issue of the contractor needing a new key. This is a serious failure by the landlord to provide a service for which it is responsible. It is also unclear why there has been such a prolonged delay in resolving a relatively simple issue.
11. Due to a lack of maintenance, the resident stated that his young child cannot access the garden. The grass is overgrown and attracts wildlife, which has resulted in animal faeces within the garden. The resident also reported that insects are entering his home. He purchased a lawnmower at his own expense to manage the grass; however, the area is too large for him to maintain effectively.
12. Although the landlord identified the issue with the grounds maintenance, it failed to take appropriate action to ensure the service resumed. It did not act in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, or learn from its failings. The landlord offered £130 compensation for the delays and the time and trouble involved in pursuing the complaint. This amount does not adequately reflect the level of detriment or inconvenience caused by the lack of grounds maintenance over a full growing season (8 months) in 2025 and 2 months of the growing season in 2026. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 to reflect the detriment caused by its failure. This is in line with our compensation guidance for circumstances where a failure adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

13. The landlord has adopted our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) and defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the services received. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2025 expressing dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance services. This should have been treated as a complaint as per the landlord’s policy and the Code.
14. The landlord responded to the resident on 16 April 2025, after 14 working days. It stated that it had received the communication and would respond within a further 14 working days. This caused the resident additional time and trouble. As he had received no response, he raised a complaint on 2 May 2025 to obtain an answer to his original query. The landlord gave no explanation for this failing in its complaint response. It also failed to explain what action it would take to prevent this happening in the future.
15. The resident asked the landlord to confirm how much its grounds maintenance contractor had saved by not completing the works and requested compensation for a proportion of this amount. The landlord had no obligation to share this information. However, it should have clearly stated its position on providing the information and on the request for additional compensation. It failed to do so. As a result, this aspect of the resident’s complaint went unanswered. This was not in line with the Code.
16. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint at either stage in the complaints process. This was a departure from the Code and its policy. However, both complaint responses appear to have been issued within its policy timescales, which was appropriate.
17. The Code says that a complaint should be responded to when the answer is known, but that actions should be monitored through to completion. The landlord committed to the service resuming within a matter of weeks in both its complaint responses. Each time it did not monitor the outstanding works. This was not in line with the Code. The poor complaint handling and lack of ownership from the landlord may have contributed to the actions remaining outstanding to date.
18. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This amount is appropriate for failures which have adversely affected the resident and is in line with our compensation guidance.

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.