From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

West Kent Housing Association (202325147)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325147

West Kent Housing Association

22 September 2025

 

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:
    1. response to the resident’s concerns about the communal grounds maintenance.
    2. handling of the complaint.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He has lived in the property since 2001. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 August 2023. He said the grass in the communal areas was not being cut. The landlord had informed him that the first cut would be completed by the end of August, but that a total of 8 cuts would be completed by the end of the year. He felt the timing of this was inappropriate and was concerned that this would mean the full cuts would be done too late in the year. He was unhappy that the landlord offered no compensation or refund of service charges.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023. It stated it had experienced some initial challenges with its new contractor and that there had been some delays in completing the cuts. However, it confirmed that the contractor was on track to complete a minimum of 8 cuts between 1 March and 31 December, as stated on its website. As a result, it was not prepared to refund part of the service charge. However, if the agreed work was not completed, it would revisit this and let all residents know.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 25 August 2023. He was unhappy that ground works had not been carried out since the spring bulbs had died. He reiterated that he was owed a refund of the service charge as he had not received the service he had paid for. He pointed out that the new contract was limited to 8 cuts per year but cutting had not started at all. He felt the landlord had not fully analysed the risk of working with this new contractor and within 3 months there had been no resolution.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It said it attended the site on 22 September 2023 and noted some areas of the grass to the rear of the building had not been cut to the appropriate standard. It arranged for the contractor to return the same day to complete the outstanding cuts. It understood that some residents had stepped in to maintain some of the beds, borders and grassed areas. While it was appreciated, it noted this made it harder for it to establish what the contractor had not done. It apologised and stated that it would closely manage the contractor and hold them accountable. It would update him in due course about any refund of the service charge. However, as the service charge was paid directly by the local council as part of his housing benefit payment, any refund would be directed to the local council. It also confirmed no additional costs would be charged back to the resident.
  6. The resident brought his complaint to us on 23 October 2023. He was unhappy that the contractor had only been to the grounds once. He felt the landlord was not being honest and it had a “continuing inability to control the situation”. To put things right, the resident has asked for a refund of the service charge that has been paid, and to be compensated for the inconvenience he has been caused.

After the complaints process ended

  1. The resident explained to us that grass cutting service has improved. In March 2024, the landlord having reviewed its position, offered the resident a £20 shopping voucher.

Assessment and findings

Communal grounds maintenance

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will maintain and repair the shared parts of the building. There is no explicit reference to communal gardens, and the landlord does not have a grounds maintenance policy. However, the landlord has not disputed it is responsible for this, and its website sets out its responsibilities for maintaining the grounds. It states it will cut grass and carry out hard surface clearance, 8 to 10 times a year between March and December.
  2. The resident has told us that he began reporting issues with the grass cutting around May 2023. He said he continued to raise this until August 2023 when he asked the landlord to treat his concerns as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s records do not confirm when the resident first reported this issue. There is no evidence relating to any reports made by the resident or anything relating to what action the landlord took during that time. As such it is not possible to assess whether its response to the resident’s reports was reasonable. This is not appropriate.
  3. It is concerning that the landlord has not kept records about the resident’s reports. The Ombudsman’s 2023 “Knowledge and Information Management” Spotlight report highlights issues that can arise from record keeping failures such as this. It said, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action”. In this case, the absence of recording likely contributed to the landlord failing to take appropriate action. As a result, it was necessary for the resident to raise his concerns formally as a complaint. This could reasonably have been avoided.
  4. The landlord’s records suggest that any meaningful engagement with the contractors about this issue began after the resident made his complaint. This indicates that the landlord only did so because of the complaint, and this should not have been the case. Had it taken a more proactive approach, by logging and monitoring the contractor visits, it could have communicated issues with the resident sooner. Therefore, it could have explained what action it was taking and overall managed expectations better.
  5. The landlord, having contacted the contractor, established that the first cut would be done by the end of August 2023. Despite discussing the complaint with the resident on 31 August 2023, there is no evidence that he was informed of this this update.
  6. The landlord discussed the issue at various internal meetings during September 2023. The notes suggest that the grass cutting was outstanding. However, there is no supporting evidence to show what conversations the landlord had with the contractor about this issue. As a result, it is not possible to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable.
  7. Landlords should be documenting communications with contractors so that it can assess and monitor any potential issues. It is also vital, as in this scenario when a resident raises a complaint, that it can see what has happened and assess whether it handled the repair appropriately. However, due to its poor record keeping we cannot establish whether it handled the matter appropriately.
  8. The evidence suggests that contractor completed the first grass cut in 2023 on or around 22 September 2023. The stage 1 response confirmed that an area to the rear of the building was not cut properly and as such it arranged for the contractor to return to the same day to complete this. It was appropriate for it to do so. It demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right.
  9. In response to the resident’s concerns the landlord agreed to monitor the situation and discuss the level of service with the contractor. This was appropriate. However, we have found that it could reasonably have dealt with the matter more proactively. The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded to the reports in a reasonable and timely manner. There was a delay in dealing with the reports and a general lack of communication and updates about the matter with the resident. The poor record keeping in this case likely impacted the effectiveness and resolution of the matter. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration for its recording keeping and for its handling of the grounds maintenance.
  10. We understand that the resident is seeking a refund of his service charges. Our approach to remedies is to be fair and to put things right. This means returning the complainant, so far as reasonably possible, to the position they would have been in had it not been for the failing. In this situation, the landlord was not sufficiently proactive in responding to the resident and raising the concerns about grounds maintenance with its contractor. It has not been established through our investigation that there has been a failure to provide the service(s) that are paid for via the service charge. It follows that there are no grounds for us to order a service charge refund. Rather, we have ordered compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failing we have identified.
  11. In relation to a service charge refund, the landlord has reasonably advised that it would until the end of the year for it to review its position and assess whether the number of cuts completed has fallen short of its contracted amount. It also provided an assurance that it would consider any service charge refund as and when necessary. The landlord has also explained that given how the resident’s rent and service charge is paid, any refund would be returned to the local authority. We are therefore satisfied that it has given consideration to a potential refund in the event that the service paid for has not been provided. It has also appropriately managed the resident’s expectations about where any refund would be processed to.

Handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response in 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which was in place at the time.
  2. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 8 August 2023. It acknowledged his complaint 2 days later and provided a stage 1 response 11 days later on 25 August 2023. While the response was slightly delayed, we have seen no evidence of detriment to the resident as a result. As a result, this departure from its policy and the Code is not considered to be a service failure. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 August 2023, this was acknowledged 3 days later. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 18 days after its acknowledgement. This was appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response also noted that it would consider the prospect of a service charge refund in due course. It explained that it would continue to monitor progress and report back with the outcome. This was a reasonable position for it to take, given the contractor was contracted to deliver 8 cuts by December. While it was understandably disappointing for the resident to hear this. It was appropriate for the landlord to wait until the contracted period was over to assess what its position was. It did so later in March 2024 by offering a £20 shopping voucher.
  4. As a result, we have made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal grounds maintenance.
    2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
    3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified by our investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal ground maintenance.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must review the findings in this case in relation to record keeping. The review must include:
    1. Identifying the minimum amount of information that ought to have been recorded in its repair and communication logs, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. This should include communication with its contractors as well as residents.
    2. An assessment of whether there is a wider issue in relation to record keeping i.e. poor systems, or if the failings were owing to human error.
  3. The landlord must provide a written report to us detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord may wish to consider creating a formal grounds maintenance policy.
  2. The landlord should review the grounds maintenance at the end of the financial year to determine whether any service charge refund is required in respect of grounds maintenance.