Sovereign Network Group (202503918)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord in August 2023 as she said she was unhappy with the communal grounds maintenance she paid a service charge for. She said shrubs had not been cut and were obstructing the path, and leaves from overgrown trees were blocking gutters.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The communal grounds maintenance.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the communal grounds maintenance.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

5. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for regular grounds maintenance. This includes grass cutting and hedge, shrub and tree maintenance at appropriate intervals. The landlord said from 2024 it managed a programme of maintenance works in-house. It aimed to cut grass 2-3 times during the growing season, attend to shrubs/hedges twice a year, and survey trees every 3 years.
6. In her complaint the resident raised grounds maintenance concerns over a 4-year period.Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue. We have not seen any evidence that she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we have considered events from August 2022.
7. The landlord was unable to provide a record of grounds maintenance attendances prior to 2024, as it said it had used a contractor at that time. The absence of records prior to 2024 means we cannot find that the landlord acted in accordance with its grounds maintenance requirements in the 12 months prior to the time of the resident’s complaint. This is a record keeping failure.
8. In December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to request a response to her complaint. The resident then met with the landlord on 18 September 2024 to discuss her complaint and grounds maintenance concerns. A site visit was also completed around this time with the resident present. The landlord provided photographs to confirm grass cutting took place on 25 September 2024.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in January 2025, in which it accepted that its grounds maintenance had not been up to standard. It identified relevant learning and provided a list of actions to address the outstanding issues. These included lowering the height of shrubs, clearing rubbish, addressing weeds, and trimming hedges. It offered the resident £100 compensation for grounds maintenance delays. These were positive steps towards putting things right.
10. The landlord provided evidence to show hedges were trimmed in November 2025. However, the resident has advised that not all of the stage 2 commitments were fulfilled. She said the rubbish was not removed, the weeds were not effectively addressed,only some of the shrubs were cut, and a remaining section continues to block visibility on a sharp bendand she feels this is a potential safety risk. The landlord’s records show a number of programme maintenance attendances,but they are not sufficiently detailed to confirm what actions were completed.
11. Although the landlord took accountability for its poor grounds maintenance, the compensation offered was not proportionate to reflect the time and trouble the resident expended over a prolonged period raising concerns. It is also unclear whether all of its stage 2 commitments were completed. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s grounds maintenance concerns. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay the resident a further £100. The total £200 compensation is in line with our compensation guidance where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
12. An order has also been made for the landlord to complete an inspection of the communal grounds to address any remaining outstanding actions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

13. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints process was in line with the response timescales recommended in our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). However, the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, which was a significant breach of its policy and the Code.
14. The landlord treated the resident’s chaser email on 15 December 2023 as a complaint escalation request. In doing so, and by investigating the complaint at stage 2 without first having issued a stage 1 response, it denied the resident access to its advertised 2-stage complaints process.
15. In line with its complaints procedure, and allowing for the relevant acknowledgement and response timescales, the landlordshould have issued a stage 2 complaint response within 25 working days, or within a maximum of 45 working days if a further 20‑day extension was applied.
16. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 3 January 2025. Although it was positive that the landlord met with the resident in September 2024 to discuss her complaint, the overall response time of 264 working days (almost 13 months) in providing the stage 2 response was excessive and unreasonable.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for its failure to provide a stage 1 complaint response. It also identified relevant learning and offered the resident £75 compensation. While these were appropriate steps towards putting things right, the compensation was not proportionate to reflect the landlord’s departure from its own policy and our Code. Nor did it fully recognise the excessive delays and time and trouble the resident experienced chasing the complaint responses.
18. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident a further £125 compensation for its multiple complaint handling failings. This is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint delays that affected the timely resolution of the dispute.

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.

Learning

19. The landlord advised its winter programme of works should raise the standard of grounds maintenance on site. It also advised the resident’s scheme will be added to schemes post inspected by a manager. These are relevant improvements that should help improve the standard and monitoring of grounds works.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord was unable to provide grounds maintenance records prior to 2024, as the service was delivered by an external contractor. However, landlords remain ultimately responsible for any work carried out on their behalf. As such, the landlord should retain adequate records to oversee and monitor works completed on its behalf. These records should contain sufficient detail to enable effective performance monitoring. The landlord should consider improvements to the level of detail currently recorded to support performance management and promote greater transparency overall.

Communication

21. The landlords complaint-related communication was poor. The resident was left unclear whether or when she would receive the complaint responses. It is hoped that the complaint handling improvements the landlord identified will improve communication with residents overall.