Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (202114352)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114352

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

15 March 2022


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 the resident’s concerns regarding grounds maintenance.

Background and summary of events 

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, in a one-bedroom flat, that has a communal garden.
  2. In an internal email on 8 June 2021, the landlord outlined the resident’s complaint. It noted that the resident said he had initially raised his concerns in May 2020 regarding not receiving the level of service he paid for, specifically the grass not being cut regularly. He said there had not been much improvement since his initial report and the grass had not been cut in over six months. He asked for a rebate for the gardening service charge and a written plan of what the service charge covered. The landlord internally acknowledged the complaint.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 July 2021 as the landlord had not responded to his complaint. He said it had been four weeks since the grass had been cut and he was previously informed that, weather permitted, it would be cut every two weeks.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 July 2021, following a phone call. It advised it had issued the contractor with an improvement notice for the condition of the communal gardens. In a further email that day, it stated “the height of the grass is within specification of the contract, and there are a few weeds & dandelions”. It said a contractor would attend soon, but it could not advise an exact date. The resident then asked for a copy of the contract and the landlord said he needed to ask for a copy as a freedom of information request. The resident disputed that the grass had been inspected, and the landlord advised the time it attended. 
  5. In an internal note on 19 July 2021, following the inspection, the landlord stated “the grass needs a cut but not yet” and “Unless the shrubs/grass are blocking a fire exit or causing an extreme hazard/obstruction” the work would not be a priority.
  6. The landlord sent its stage one response to the resident on 21 July 2021. It said the grass should be cut at two-week intervals during the summer, however several of its contractors were self-isolating due to COVID-19 and this had impacted the maintenance schedules. It added that a recent heatwave had contributed to rapid grass growth. The grass was originally scheduled to be cut on 19 July 2021 but had been rescheduled to 28 July 2021. It said it had inspected the grass twice, including on that day, and the grass was within specification, but due to be cut. It said as the grass did not pose a health and safety risk, it was unable to prioritise the work.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 July 2021 and asked to escalate his complaint. He disputed that the grass had been inspected. He said the grass had only been cut once (he did not say when).
  8. An internal note from the landlord on 29 July 2021 stated that posters had been put up in the flats advising that all of the estates team had to isolate for two weeks due to COVID-19. 
  9. The landlord sent its stage two response on 2 August 2021. It said that the requirement to act in accordance with COVID-19 restrictions had significantly impacted the contractor’s scheduling programme. It had spoken to the contractor and issued it with “formal rectification notices” (improvement notices). It confirmed the grass had been cut on 28 July 2021 and the contractor would continue to adhere to the schedule, which it would monitor to ensure compliance. It incorrectly signposted him to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied (LGSCO).

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the tenancy handbook, the landlord is responsible for grounds maintenance, and it therefore needs to ensure that the grass in the communal garden is cut in line with its service standards. As the resident has disputed the level of service the landlord is providing, the landlord is required to acknowledge his concerns and explain what action it will take, if it determines it is required to do so.
  2. In this case, the resident raised his concerns with the landlord that the grass was not being cut as frequently as it should, in line with its service standards. The landlord appropriately addressed his concerns as it explained how frequently the grass should be cut, and informed him when it was next scheduled to be cut. The landlord acknowledged that the service had not been entirely up to the relevant standard, but that this had been because the contractors responsible were isolating with COVID-19. It inspected the grass to ensure it complied with health and safety guidelines and promptly provided further information regarding the inspection when the resident disputed it had attended. It also issued an improvement notice to its contractor and said it would monitor progress.
  3. Although some appointments to cut the grass were missed due to contractors self-isolating with COVID-19, any outstanding work was postponed and completed at a later date. The landlord also inspected the grass between appointments and advised the work could be prioritised if it posed a health and safety risk, which it did not. The landlord therefore fulfilled the service the resident paid for, and it was not obliged to refund the service charge as requested by the resident, as although some appointments were delayed, the service was completed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord reasonably responded to the resident’s concerns as it explained why it had not been able to adhere to its service standards and it outlined the steps it would take to improve the service. 

Recommendations

  1. In its final complaint response, the landlord incorrectly referred the resident to the LGSCO, rather than to the Housing Ombudsman. It is not apparent if this caused confusion or delay on the resident’s part, but the landlord should take steps to ensure that it always provides the correct escalation information.