Stonewater Limited (202315001)

Background

1. The resident is a shared owner of the property. Her complaint was about an overgrown rose bed which affected the accessibility of the path leading to her gas meter box. She also reported a lack of lighting outside the communal bins and bike store. The resident has dyspraxia which she said affects her coordination and balance. She said it is also impacted by a lack of lighting.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Concerns regarding the grounds maintenance service.
   2. Reports of insufficient communal lighting.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Concerns regarding the grounds maintenance service.
   2. Reports of insufficient communal lighting.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns regarding the grounds maintenance service.

5. The landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint responses. However, it did not carry out an assessment of the path as agreed. This did not put things right and likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience due to the concerns for her safety.

Reports of insufficient communal lighting.

6. The landlord has not evidenced it responded to the reports appropriately or in line with its obligations. While it recognised some of its failures, the overall time taken to resolve the issue was not appropriate. This likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.

Handling of the complaint.

7. The landlord fairly acknowledged its failures in the handling of the complaint. It showed learning from the outcome by amending its processes. It also offered redress which was proportionate to the impact caused by its failures.

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.

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.

8. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in good repair pathways, steps, or other means of access. It also includes external communal areas and shared gardens.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy says where customers pay for a service to a communal area and it failed to provide that service, it will compensate customers with a refund proportionate to the amount of time they were without the service.
10. On 16 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord if she could discuss the rose bed patch in the communal garden. She said it was affecting the suitability of the path to her gas meter box. She was concerned there would be an accident and that the spikes on the roses would cause an injury. She said she had raised the issue with the landlord many times. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident. She chased a response in July 2023 and again in her formal complaint.
11. The first record of the landlord addressing the issue which we have seen is in its stage 1 response dated 28 September 2023, 3 months later. It apologised for not addressing the overgrown shrubs. It said it arranged for its contractor to cut them back. It said it would raise a job for its contractor to assess the pathway to ensure it is suitable for the resident and other residents who have challenges with mobility.
12. This may have been a reasonable approach to take if the landlord had carried out those actions. However, in her stage 2 escalation on 19 November 2023, the resident said the landlord had not actioned the jobs. The landlord has not provided evidence to us of it raising or completing the jobs at the time either. This was not appropriate.
13. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that when it put its grounds maintenance contract out for tender there were a series of errors which impacted the residents. It said it had omitted some details for estates, which was why the work had not been completed. It said the contractor now had the correct information, would quote for the works, and pick up the attendance schedule in due course. It said it could authorise a service charge refund for the period of missed time. It also offered compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
14. The landlord has confirmed to us that its grounds maintenance contractor cut back the overgrown shrubs which were obstructing access to the gas meter box. The resident also confirmed this was carried out, but she said the bushes were fast growing. She said the landlord would need to remove much more of the bush to make it properly accessible for her as the path was not very wide. She said she has to step around the edges onto uneven stones which was a trip hazard and exacerbated by her dyspraxia.
15. We find it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange to cut back the hedges. However, the time taken for it do so was not appropriate. While the landlord outlined the reasons for the delays it did not outline why it failed to respond to her emails or how it had considered the risks to her in the meantime. It committed to assessing the path in its stage 1 response but there is no evidence of it doing so. An assessment of the path would have been appropriate in the circumstances. This would have helped to inform its grounds maintenance responsibilities and if it needed to complete any works to the path.
16. The landlord offered a total of £450 for both its failures related to grounds maintenance and lighting. It did not apportion a set amount for the grounds maintenance failings. Half of the amount would be in line with our remedies guidance for where there was an adverse impact. That, alongside the service charge refund may have been reasonable if the landlord had carried out all the actions it said it would. The landlord has not evidenced it has done so, therefore we found service failure.

17. On 16 June 2023, the resident queried why the lighting outside the bin and bike store had been removed, with no replacements. She said she had difficulty seeing in the dark and with her disability, this meant she needed good, substantial, and reliable lighting. She raised concerns that the lack of lighting would result in her having an accident. The resident chased a response from the landlord on 4 July 2023 and in her formal complaint on 30 August 2023.
18. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs in 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days. Therefore, upon the resident’s report that the lighting was no longer there, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the lighting and carry out any works to restore it within the timescales set out in its policy. It is a failing that the landlord did not take any action, especially given the reported impact described by the resident.
19. In its stage 1 response dated 28 September 2023, the landlord confirmed the lighting was solar lighting and due to their position, they did not receive enough charge for them to work. It said it attended to address the issue and it raised follow on works but the order was subsequently closed with no further action taken. It apologised for the impact caused to the resident. It said it had raised an order to assess the lighting and possibility of adding additional lighting. It also offered compensation.
20. As with the garden maintenance, the landlord’s response may have been reasonable if it had then carried out the actions. But it did not do so. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delay. It said it would replace the communal lighting with a more effective system. It offered further compensation. However, it did not provide the timescales in which it intended to replace the lighting. This would not have managed the resident’s expectations. It also failed to show consideration to any action it could have taken to mitigate the impact to the resident in the meantime, such as temporary battery operated lighting.
21. The landlord did not replace the lighting until over 18 months after the stage 2 response. The failure to complete a temporary or permanent repair within the relevant policy’s deadline meant the landlord left the resident living with a potential health and safety risk, for an unreasonable length of time. Due to the time taken to resolve the issue and the likely impact caused to the resident within that time, we have found service failure.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It said it would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days but if it needed longer, it would notify the customer of the timeframe. It said it would acknowledge a stage 2 escalation in 2 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It said it the process may take longer it would notify the customer.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 1 working day which was in line with its policy. It informed the resident when it needed longer to respond to the complaint and then issued the response within 10 working days as agreed. This was reasonable.
24. We have not seen evidence of the landlord acknowledging the stage 2 escalation. It provided its stage 2 response 24 working days later, which was not in line with its policy. Its stage 2 response acknowledged the failure to respond within the timescales and it offered £100 for that failing. This was a reasonable amount to put right its failings and was in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which delayed resolving the matters. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy, which is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
25. The landlord also acknowledged it did not handle the resident’s email dated 16 June 2023 correctly or as a complaint. It said it had since amended its processes to prevent it happening again. It offered £50 compensation for that failing. This was also reasonable and recognised the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase the matters.
26. Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, the landlord fairly acknowledged its failures, showed learning from the outcomes, and put things right by offering proportionate compensation. This was in line with our dispute resolutions principles. As such, we found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

27. In this case, the landlord did not regularly update the resident on the status of works or show it had oversight of the works. The landlord should reflect on the recommendations made in our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance to avoid frustration and dissatisfaction from residents in future. These include the importance of keeping accurate records, letting residents know what to expect regarding works required, and providing a clear timeframe for carrying them out. The report highlights the importance of feedback from residents and conducting inspections to ensure work carried out is satisfactory and fit for purpose.