Stonewater Limited (202113387)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113387

Stonewater Limited

16 September 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:
    1. Service charges paid by the resident for grounds maintenance and cleaning of communal areas.
    2. Rubbish removal from the communal car park.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in flat which backs onto a car park for residents. The resident is charged service charges for grounds maintenance and cleaning of communal areas on a weekly basis.
  2. In September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about the build-up of rubbish in one corner of the communal car parking area which had been there for some time, directly under the resident’s kitchen window. The resident asked that the landlord remove the rubbish that had been dumped in the car park. Despite the resident’s efforts in sending monthly requests to the landlord by email, and through social media, as well as numerous phone calls, the rubbish was not removed.
  3. In March 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it escalated the initial concerns she raised about the build-up of rubbish in the car park. A letter was also sent to the resident in respect of a rent review which detailed the following service charges applicable to the resident; cleaning communal area charges, grounds maintenance charges, disposal charges and a provision to replace rotary driers.
  4. Arrangements were made between the landlord and resident for the removal of rubbish in April 2021. The landlord’s contractor had confirmed it had attended the property and removed the rubbish from the communal car park in May 2021. Following the visit, the landlord then issued a response letter to the resident apologising for the lack of consistent communication over the last six months. It informed the resident that it acknowledged its failings in removing the rubbish. It also offered to pay the resident £200 compensation for its delays in resolving the matter. It also provided a breakdown of costs to the resident incurred for service charges.
  5. On viewing the car park, the resident remained dissatisfied that the rubbish had not been removed when the contractor attended. The landlord’s final response on the matter was issued in June 2021. It mentioned that it had arranged for a follow-up site visit to take place of all communal grounds and was happy to consider the resident’s request for reimbursement of service charges as the resident stated that the services had not been provided. The landlord proposed to increase its original offer of compensation to £400. It also promised the resident that the remaining rubbish would be removed.
  6. There was no further communication between the resident and the landlord that any site visit had taken place and the resident confirmed that she had still received no update or correspondence from the landlord on any reimbursement or suspension of service charges.
  7. In December 2021, the resident arrived home to notice minor cleaning had been done. The rubbish had still not been removed but rather, pushed to the side of the car park and some of it dumped in the resident’s bin. The resident did not receive any further correspondence from the landlord until March 2022 when the landlord had advised her that it had reviewed its service charges and compensated the resident £68.09 for its failure to maintain the grounds and communal areas. The landlord stated that this compensation was reasonable as reimbursement for service charges the resident had been paying for but not receiving from the period of April 2019 to February 2022. The landlord stated that it had calculated the compensation based on an understanding that around 30% of the area of grounds had been unmaintained.
  8. Overall, the resident explained that, to resolve matters, she would like compensation to be awarded by the landlord for delays in removing the rubbish in the car park, as well as for a site visit to be carried out with a view to removing the remaining rubbish and maintaining the area. The resident would also like reimbursement for service charges in relation to grounds maintenance.

 

 

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about incurring service charges for the maintenance of the communal car park which is a service she has not received. The resident had also raised concerns regarding a recent complaint made to the landlord about increased service charges from April 2022 onwards.
  3. Under Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Whilst we cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges in respect of rent reviews and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable, this Service can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated by the landlord. Therefore, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about continuing to pay the service charges.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its tenancy agreement and a copy of its estate’s services photobook. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is obliged to maintain its standards of cleanliness and grounds maintenance responsibilities on behalf of the resident, for which the resident shall pay a service charge.
  2. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including pathways and other means of access.
  3. The resident must report any disrepair to the structure or exterior of the premises therein or in any common parts.
  4. The resident has the right to claim compensation for up to £750 for works where, if left unattended, would jeopardise the health and safety of the resident.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord referred to its estate’s photobook showing a grading system from (A) to (D). An (A) grading would constitute to car parking areas having no litter, providing an acceptable standard of cleanliness. A rating of (C) to (D) would show car parking areas having a higher build-up of litter and would fall below the required standard.

Service charges paid by the resident for grounds maintenance and communal areas

  1. The landlord has not followed its obligations as set out per the tenancy agreement. The landlord was obliged to keep the communal areas in good repair and to keep accessways clear. It had recognised in its final response to the complaint that it did not adhere to its obligations to maintain the communal areas for which the resident was continuing to pay a service charge.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement also referred to the resident incurring service charges for the maintenance of grounds and communal areas. The landlord provided for an extensive breakdown of what the service charge would consist of as set out above. It had explained its fees for maintaining areas of the property for which the resident incurred a weekly charge for.
  3. The resident had informed the landlord in September 2020 that the services charged for were not being provided. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns and no correspondence from the landlord was received until March 2021 when the landlord had briefly addressed that it was escalating the resident’s initial complaint.
  4. Following the complaint escalation, the contents of the landlord’s final response made no mention of the delays in the landlord adhering to its complaint process and responding to the resident. The landlord did mention a site inspection was carried out but there was no correspondence to show evidence of this or an outcome of the inspection. However, the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s pictures showing a build-up of rubbish and offered a discount in respect of the service charges the resident had incurred for grounds maintenance.
  5. The landlord’s offer to compensate the resident 30% in respect of maintenance services that were not carried out was reasonable in this case. The landlord had recognised there were failings in its communication with the resident and had recognised that the resident’s concerns of a build-up of rubbish had not been addressed and that promises had not been kept.
  6. The landlord should have offered to waive part of the service an earlier date to save the resident from paying for a service she had not been receiving. However, the landlord provided appropriate redress in its final complaint response which was reasonable to resolve this aspect of the complaint.  It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a 30% refund because some level of service was being provided, although it is acknowledged it was not of an acceptable standard. The resident would only be entitled to a full refund of the grounds maintenance service charge if the service was not being provided at all.

 

Rubbish removal from the communal car park.

  1. The landlord is obligated to maintain its standards for properties it owns in respect of health and hygiene. Within the estates policy referred to, a grading system highlighted what would be expected of the landlord in order to maintain its properties. The landlord did not follow its policy in ensuring that the property and its surrounding areas continued to be maintained and had failed to communicate the level of health and safety standards to its residents.
  2. This Service would have expected the landlord to ensure all communal areas are kept clean by arranging a site inspection of all areas including the car park and it should inform the residents of when this inspection will occur as the residents had no correspondence from the landlord of any previous inspections taking place. It should also provide for regular inspections of these areas to improve its policy standards rating and to maintain it. There is no evidence to suggest this had been done and so there were failings in the landlord’s approach to keeping in line with its standards set out in its estates policy.
  3. In this case, however, the landlord had recognised its failings and proposed an increased offer of £400 to the resident in respect of the inconvenience caused due to its failures in removing the rubbish and maintaining the areas. This was reasonable as the landlord has recognised that it did not correspond with the resident and did not clear the rubbish. This offer of compensation was in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy of carrying out works that have been left unattended and was also in line with the Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £250-700 where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include, failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs and serious failures but which have already been recognised and resolved by landlord, including redress for actual financial loss.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £400 in compensation if it has not already done so.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord arranges for an inspection to be carried out of communal and parking areas. It should let residents in the area know of when the inspection is due to take place, for example, by placing a noticeboard in a communal area as well as letting residents know the outcome of any inspection. If possible, the landlord should consider taking photographs during the inspection and future inspections as evidence that the inspection has taken place and to show the state of the area when it was inspected.
  3. The landlord is recommended to provide the resident with evidence that its contactor’s have fulfilled its obligations with regards to both the communal cleaning and ground maintenance.