Vivid Housing Limited (202000669)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202000669

Vivid Housing Limited

4 September 2020

 


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 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

 

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:

  • the standard of landscaping around the property and common areas;
  • the level of service charges;
  • its complaint handling. 

 

Jurisdiction

 

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.

 

The resident’s complaint included her dissatisfaction with the level of service charge she was paying for communal landscaping/gardening on the estate. It is evident from the complaint correspondence available to this investigation that the landlord has informed the resident that it will not start to recover the costs for maintenance of the estate until the site is brought up to a reasonable standard. It is not clear therefore whether this aspect of the complaint remains a point of dissatisfaction for the resident.

 

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 23 of the

Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

The First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) is the appropriate body for handling

complaints about the level of service charges on a lease. The Ombudsman does not

have the remit for making findings in this respect. Paragraph 23(g) of the Scheme

confirms that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints, which, in his opinion:

 

Concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of rent or service charge increase.

 

As such, this investigation will not consider the complaint about the level of service

charge. The complaints about the standard of landscaping and the landlord’s complaint handling are within jurisdiction and have been considered below.

 

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership lease holder with the landlord at the property, a house located on an estate. The lease start date was 18 January 2019. Under the terms of the lease the resident is required to pay a service charge for maintenance and upkeep of the communal areas on the estate (open space, attenuation basin, play areas etc..)
  2. The complaint includes reported problems with the landscaping to the exterior of the property and common areas of the housing estate. At the time of the complaint, the site developer (the developer) had an ongoing contract with respect to communal maintenance on the estate. A separate maintenance contractor (the contractor) is scheduled to take over the maintenance contract once the initial gardening and landscaping is completed to a satisfactory level by the developer.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that there have been significant delays in the progress regarding landscaping of the communal areas and that this has resulted in multiple complaints from residents about the quality of the landscaping on the estate. There have also been delays due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, during this time the landlord has been working with both the developer and the contractor to find a way to raise the landscaping to an acceptable standard.
  4. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that ‘services are delivered with certainty, flexibility and to the customers expectations’ and that they will ‘be completed within prescribed time scales and as agreed with customers’.
  5. The landlords Leasehold Management Policy outlines that residents are obliged to pay service charges which are set out in their lease agreements and are to cover ‘services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and audit fees in accordance with the terms of the lease and to the extent that the costs have been reasonably incurred’. 

Summary of events

  1. On 8 March 2019 a joint inspection report was completed by the landlord, developer and contractor. This outlined the works required at the site to raise standards in communal areas to an ‘acceptable’ level. The following gardening and landscaping works were identified:
  • watering regime put in place for new turf
  • removal of fencing materials left in common area
  1. On 19 June 2019 the resident sought an update on the grounds maintenance at the estate and raised that ‘mowing needs to be done’ and the presence of weeds.
  2. On 20 June 2019 the resident informed the landlord about a large grass area on common land which was ‘waist height’ and needed cutting and also about the presence of weeds. The landlord responded to the resident and said that it had discussed this issue with the developer, who had confirmed that the issue was in the process of being addressed.
  3. On 24 July 2019 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the grass had been recently cut in a common area and just ‘left in mounds and not cleared away’. The resident also raised again the issues of weeds at the property.
  4. On 19 August 2019 the resident wrote a letter to the landlord and complained that areas where grass should have been laid are just ‘a mass of weeds and dead grass’. She also raised the length of time it had taken to hand over the maintenance contract to the contractor.
  5. On 5 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it had made a proposal to the developer for the landlord’s in–house services to carry out some landscaping works at the developers expense. The landlord explained however that the developer was under no obligation to agree to this proposal. There is no evidence of this proposal having progressed any further following this update.
  6. On 25 September 2019 the following items and overall condition of the development were recorded at a joint site visit by the landlord/contractor and developer. The following gardening and landscaping issues arose:
  • Several areas of landscaping were still outstanding along the main estate roads and works on the open green space had not commenced.
  • The central green space required debris removal as well as a weed and feed.
  • Thorough weed and feed of all green open space areas including tidy up of land beneath the pylon to north of the development within central open space area
  1. On the 11 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to say that, in his view, the case was still open as the work had not been completed and only some ‘minor’ mowing had taken place with the grass ‘left on top’.
  2. On the 30 October the landlord issued a formal stage one response. It agreed that the handover to the contractor was taking longer than it would have liked. It said that the developer was preparing to carry out the planting requirements that had been raised by the resident. The landlord also accepted the need to follow up with the developer regularly about the need for them to continue to maintain the open space and the further works needed to bring it up to the standard that would then allow them to hand it over to the contractor.
  3. On 9 December 2019 a joint inspection report was done by the landlord/developer and contractor. This identified the works that needed to be completed at the site. The following gardening and landscaping issues arose:
  • Several areas of landscaping were still outstanding.
  • There were extensive works required on the open green space which the developer had not yet commenced.
  • The front boundary on the existing main road still required a ‘good rubble pick’ and the lawn to have a ‘weed and feed’ carried out.
  • The central green space also required a ‘good debris removal’ along with a ‘weed and feed’.
  1. On 10 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord about landscapers carrying out garden maintenance in terrible weather and thus the job not being of a quality standard, with dirt being ‘strewn all over the path’. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the issues of ‘poor’ landscaping, service charges and garden maintenance to a stage two complaint.
  2. On 10 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it was of the opinion that the bushes did not need cutting back and that the mud from the path had been washed away.
  3. On 23 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord and raised concerns about the vicinity of plants to the path, which she wanted removing.
  4. On 14 January 2020, the landlord issued the resident its stage two complaint response. The landlord highlighted that it ‘could have done better’ and arranged for further meetings with the resident to discuss the planting requirements at the property which took place on the 26 January 2020. The landlord stated that the delay in handing over the maintenance contract was due to the developer not completing the approved works. The landlord apologised that the resident had to raise the issue of the landscaping at the site. The landlord expressed its frustrations and undertook to closely monitor the performance of the developer and landscapers in the future.
  5. On 21 January 2020 the landlord informed the resident that it was in regular contact with the developer regarding the delays to the completion of the work required and had asked them to provide evidence that the landscaping work had been completed in accordance with the required planting scheme approved by the local planning authority.
  6. On the 22 January 2020 the landlord informed the resident that it had discussed the completion of the landscaping works with the construction director at the developer and had asked for a regular update as to progress across the site for completion of the landscaping works.
  7. On 20 March 2020 the resident informed the landlord that the bushes by the steps had been moved but the grass and weeds continued to be an issue.
  8. On the 29 April 2020 the landlord stated that ‘the costs of bringing the grounds maintenance up to an acceptable standard for the managing agent to take on responsibility will not be borne by the residents of the estate’. The landlord detailed that ‘they will only start recovering costs for the maintenance on the site when the land is brought to an acceptable standard. The costs of any work currently being commissioned is covered by the landlord or developer’.
  9. On the 29 April 2020 the landlord informed the resident that Contractors were appointed in to undertake some of the remedial work required to the landscaping before this would be accepted by the managing agents for the site.

 

Assessment and findings

 

 

The standard of landscaping around the property and common areas

 

  1.  Both the landlord and resident have provided significant photo and written evidence to demonstrate that the standard of landscaping around the property and common areas of the estate had not reached an acceptable level. The resident on multiple occasions informed the landlord of the different landscaping issues as they occurred. It is acknowledged by the landlord that there has been a significant delay in the handover of the maintenance contract as the common areas have not been brought up to an acceptable standard.
  2. It is however not the landlord’s responsibility in this situation to complete the work to bring the common areas up to standard as it is evident that the responsibility for maintaining the communal areas is that of the developer. The landlord’s role is to notify the developer of complaints that are raised about those areas and taking reasonable steps to ensure that these issues are addressed by the relevant party.
  3. The landlord sought to have the residents’ complaints addressed by contacting the developer who is responsible for maintaining the common areas. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with detailed correspondence between it and the developer attempting to get the residents issues resolved. The landlord has demonstrated its regular contact regarding the issues, it has performed joint inspections with the developer in order to identify any other issues and has also agreed to more closely monitor the work of maintenance contractors in the future.
  4. It is also acknowledged by the Ombudsman that there were external factors relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown that has further effected the completion of the work by the developers. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman believes that the pandemic led to a further inevitable delay in the landlord/developer being able to progress this issue.
  5. As a way of putting the issue right the landlord has agreed that they will not be collecting the costs for maintenance of the estate until the site is brought up to a reasonable standard. In the circumstances, this amounts to a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion. The landlord has acknowledged that the developer’s service provision was not up to standard and has decided not to charge for these services. Whilst it remains the case that the resident is required to live with the low standard of landscaping whilst standards are improved, this is offset by the fact that she will not be required to pay for any works completed while this process is ongoing. It is also recommended however, that the resident be provided with regular updates regarding progress on this issue until such time as the maintenance contract is handed over to the contractor.

 

 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage Complaints Policy; if the resident is dissatisfied with the response at stage one, they can request a review of their complaint. The documentation provided demonstrates that the resident first raised the issue formally through a letter with the landlord on 19 August 2019. There was then almost a two month delay in the formal response by the landlord, issuing its stage one response on 30 October 2019. Whilst there is evidence of the landlord progressing the substantive issue during this period of delay, it was also required to provide a formal complaint response within the timescales provided in its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints Policy stated that ‘We’ll aim to carry out a full investigation and communicate our findings to our customer within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged by the investigating manager.  If this isn’t possible, we’ll inform our customer within these 10 working days, to advise when we expect to deliver a full response.’ It is clear that the landlord’s response to the residents’ complaint was therefore outside the time frame set out in its Complaints Policy. The Ombudsman expects landlord’s to operate a timely and efficient complaints process that complements its overall service delivery. In this case, the landlord’s delay contributed to its overall delay in responding to the substantive issue and meant that it missed the opportunity of achieving an earlier resolution on the case.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied with this response from the landlord and sought to advance the complaint to a stage two. This was done within the 15 days that is required under the landlord’s Complaints Policy. The landlord delivered the outcome of the level 2 response within the required 20 business days set out in their Complaints Policy.

 

 

Determination (decision)

 

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:

  • No maladministration by the landlord in respect to the standard of landscaping around the property and common areas.

 

  • Service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

 

Reasons

 

It is evident that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the standard of landscaping by raising the issues with the developer, completing joint inspections, agreeing to monitor the issue until resolution and not charging for services until this had been achieved. In the circumstances, the landlord’s response was reasonable and in accordance with its administrative role in the process.

The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with their internal policies. The landlord failed to complete their stage one complains procedures within the correct 10 day time frame and also failed to communicate with the resident about the delay.

Orders

 

The landlord to apologise and to pay £50 compensation to the resident for any distress/inconvenience she experienced as a result of the delay in progressing the case through its complaints process.

The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 2 October 2020.

 

Recommendations

The landlord should continue to monitor the repairs and maintenance of the property and common areas in the estate and ensure that the contract is transferred over to the contractor once they are up to standard, ensuring that the resident is provided with regular updates on this issue until the handover has taken place.