Southern Housing (202429786)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom house and has said for all that time he has been dissatisfied with the quality of work carried out by the grounds maintenance service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its grounds maintenance service.
   2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its grounds maintenance service.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Resident’s concerns about its grounds maintenance service

4. For the period the investigation considered, the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports was reasonable and in line with its estate services standards.

Landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord apologised and made a proportionate compensation award for its complaint handling failings.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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.

6. The resident has expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance service. The resident became a freeholder in late September 2023. Before this date the resident was a shared owner. The scope of our investigation is limited to consideration of the events when the resident was a shared owner and, in a tenant and landlord relationship. Therefore, the investigation will consider from February 2023 (this being 12 months before the complaint was made) to September 2023 when the resident became a freeholder as set out in our scheme.
7. The landlord’s records do not record any reports or communication from the resident between February 2023 to May 2023. The earliest action recorded by the landlord on 12 May 2023 was to raise an order to replace slate chippings in the wooden sleepers and to plant 12 mini plants. There is no evidence the works order was raised following a request from the resident. The landlord does not have a timescale for responding to communal repairs. Its responsive repair policy says it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. The landlord took until 13 July for its contractor to accept the invoice.
8. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractor. It is not reasonable that its records do not give the date the work was completed. Had the landlord monitored the actions of its contractors, this may have prevented the resident chasing to obtain an update regarding the work to the wooden planters on 9 June 2023.
9. The resident also said on 9 June 2023 the landlord’s tree contractor had not completed all the tree work, and the area had not been weeded. In the same month, the tree contractor requested the landlord approve its invoice for completed work. The landlord had requested the removal of a tree and the reduction of 2 other trees. Also, the landlord’s ground maintenance contractor invoiced the landlord on 30 June 2023 for additional work carried out. Referring the resident’s concerns to its estate services team for review was reasonable as it allowed the landlord to check what had been carried out.
10. The landlord took reasonable actions with estate inspections carried out on 3 October 2023, 4 April 2024 and 2 July 2024. Apart from the inspection carried out on 2 July 2024, the inspection overall assessed the work carried out by its grounds maintenance contractor to be satisfactory. The inspection on 2 July 2024 identified that further work was required. This was: areas required weeding, bin areas to be swept and bulk rubbish to be removed from the bin area. The landlord’s Stage 1 complaint response said it had addressed the resident’s concerns.
11. The resident’s communication does not give a specific location for the broken fence panel complained about on 9 June 2023. The inspection reports dated 3 October 2023, 4 April 2024 and 2 July 2024 do not identify any damage to the boundary fences. Its records show on 17 April 2024 it removed the fence panel. The resident disputes this. The landlord is responsible for the management of the boundary fence. Once it became aware of damage to a fence panel it was reasonable for the landlord in its Stage 2 complaint response to agree to replace it. We expect landlords to act on commitments made in its complaint responses.
12. The resident’s concerns addressed during the complaint process were made when the resident was a freeholder. As the resident is now the owner of the property, if he remains dissatisfied with the grounds maintenance service, he can obtain legal advice about any further action he wants to take about this. This is because our jurisdiction prevents us making a determination about these matters.
13. In summary, for the period we can assess, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and address the resident’s concerns. Given the limited impact of the landlord’s failings which was minor in nature on the resident a finding of no maladministration has been made.

14. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 May 2024 about his dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance service. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord told the resident on 26 June 2024 it needed more time to respond to his complaint. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 10 July 2024, taking 36 working days. This is a failing causing uncertainty and frustration to the resident.
15. In its complaint review, the landlord recognised it had not met its Stage 1 complaint handling target. This was to respond to Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It was reasonable that it apologised and made a compensation award of £50 for its complaint handling failures.
16. The resident remained dissatisfaction and escalated his complaint on 11 July 2024. The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 20 August 2024, taking 28 working days. This was just outside the Stage 2 complaint handling timescale of 20 working days.
17. The landlord offered an additional £15 for its complaint handling failures, making an overall compensation award of £65. Our Remedies Guidance advises that payments between £50 to £100 are payable when there has been minor failure in the landlord’s service delivery. The landlord offered a personal apology to the resident and explained how it proposed to improve its complaint handling to put things right. For those reasons, the landlord’s apology and compensation award is considered reasonable and proportionate for the identified service failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. In our special report to the landlord, we identified the importance to the landlord of effective and accurate record keeping. This was also relevant in this report as accurate records enables it to manage issues raised by resident as well as fulfil its obligations as a landlord. Without accurate records it cannot properly investigate, respond and demonstrating it has done what it agreed to do in its internal complaint process.

Communication

19. The landlord should take steps to ensure its estate services team respond promptly to residents.