The Guinness Partnership Limited (202341508)

Background

1. The resident raised a query with the landlord on 1 March 2022 after she saw in the service charge budget it charged for block gardening. The landlord wrote to all residents on 6 September 2023 to say it did not do a regular gardening service but carried out ad hoc weeding and clearance of the planter. As such it offered all residents a goodwill gesture of £140. The tenancy agreement said the service charges were fixed, which included ground maintenance.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the gardening element of her service charges.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the gardening element of her service charges.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to recognise the failure in service due to its delay in initially responding to the resident’s gardening service charge query. It also did not adequately respond to the resident’s query about its ad hoc visits. We have awarded the resident an additional £150 to recognise these failures.
7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

8. The resident advised us she lived in the block for over 30 years, initially with her mother, before getting her own flat. She was therefore familiar with the block’s services when she signed her tenancy agreement, which also mentioned the grounds maintenance charge. We are satisfied the resident knew about this charge.
9. In an email to the resident on 10 May 2022, the landlord highlighted it uses the terms gardening and grounds maintenance interchangeably. Despite recognising it can cause confusion, we agree it is commonplace for landlords to use the terms interchangeably.
10. We are satisfied the resident was aware that there was a charge for the grounds maintenance and her obligation to pay it. Therefore, we believe the landlord could charge for this. The resident’s complaint concerned whether the landlord completed any gardening or grounds maintenance work.
11. The landlord confirmed it carried out ad hoc visits. In her initial complaint of 14 November 2023, the resident queried when the landlord did this.In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 27 November 2023 it said it had a new process to take photographs to evidence its work.
12. We are satisfied we have seen evidence of the landlord’s completed visits from at least April 2023. We note the resident sent us photographs which she dated to 7 January 2024. These photographs show different areas to the landlord’s photographs of similar dates.
13. We have seen evidence the landlord did visit the block, so we believe this concerns the quality or extent of its work which does not form a part of this report’s assessment. As we have not seen evidence these were sent to the landlord, we cannot determine whether it has had a chance to respond. Therefore, we cannot assess this.
14. We cannot determine whether the landlord completed ad hoc visits prior to this. The resident advised us the landlord did not, the landlord said it did. Therefore, we will address the landlord’s response to the resident’s query.
15. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it did ad hoc visits, but did not provide any further information, except that it now takes photographs. The resident clearly said in her escalation request there was no evidence the landlord did ad hoc visits. As the final response letter does not respond to this, the landlord has not provided the resident with an adequate answer.
16. We would expect the landlord to review its records to evidence visits or complete an estate inspection to see the condition of the areas it looked after. We have not seen evidence the landlord considered these. This was a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
17. Once the resident highlighted her concerns to the landlord in March 2022, it took it until September 2023, to inform all residents of the mislabelling. This was an excessive amount of time. In her conversation with us the resident highlighted her frustration with these delays and having to repeat herself due to staff changes. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay and the length of time the issue was outstanding for the resident.
18. We have ordered the landlord to pay a further £150 compensation in addition to the £140 goodwill gesture it already offered. This is for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident from the additional service failures we identified. This amount is higher than our remedies guidance for service failure cases. The landlord had made an attempt to put things right, but the offer did not reflect the detriment to the resident and was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This is necessary due to the failings and the length of time taken to resolve this issue.
19. The landlord said it would ensure it removed all references to gardening in the next year’s budget. We note it did not do this, and it had to reissue its budget when the resident highlighted this. It was poor that the landlord did not stick to what it promised. In a recent telephone call we held with the resident, she said gardening appeared on the budget again. We have not seen evidence of this, but we have recommended that the landlord uses gardening in communications when there are communal grassed areas.

20. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt. This is in line with the Code. The landlord responded to each stage of the complaint within its policy timescales.
21. The landlord accepted the resident’s escalation request, despite this being outside its policy’s timeframes of 14 days. This was positive complaint handling as it meant the resident had access to having her complaint heard.
22. We did not find any failings with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

23. The landlord is now keeping suitable records of the work it completes at its blocks. This is a positive step and should help the smooth resolution of complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The only failing we found was the landlord’s lack of written notes of the phone call on 8 January 2024 between it and the resident. It referred to this in its final response letter. The landlord should have documented this in its evidence bundle. It is reminded to ensure its evidence bundles are thorough.

Communication

25. Aside the failings found in the report, such as the delay in providing the resident with an adequate initial response we did not identify other communication concerns.