Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Onward Homes Limited (202216740)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216740

Onward Homes Limited

30 October 2023

 

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. the resident’s concerns about the quality of the grounds maintenance service and the associated enquiries about her service charges;
    2. the complaint.

Background 

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a property which is a two-bedroom, second-floor flat in a block that is part of a three-block site. She pays towards the upkeep of the communal grounds through service charges. The formal complaint responses were issued by a commercial subsidiary of the landlord. This subsidiary also monitored and managed the grounds maintenance contractors. Throughout this report both the landlord and the subsidiary are referred to as “the landlord”.
  2. In June 2021, the resident reported that the standard of the communal grounds and gardening service was at an unacceptable level. She provided photos of thistles and multiple patches of weeds that had not been dealt with. The resident reported again in October 2021, with photos, that it had been 4 weeks since gardeners were last on site and the same thistles and weeds had not been removed.
  3. Between October 2021 and May 2022, the landlord communicated both internally and with its contractor about garden maintenance and discussed the quality of works, attendance and withholding payment for work not completed. The resident made a formal complaint on 15 June 2022. She stated that, despite raising issues about the site over a year ago, the garden maintenance service was still unsatisfactory. She requested compensation or service charge credit to cover previous years’ gardening service charges.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 August 2022 and issued its stage 1 response on 9 August 2022. It confirmed its own environmental service team had managed the ground maintenance of the site since April 2022. It also brought in additional resources at no charge to leaseholders to ensure its gardens were up its newly implemented garden service specification and said that it would carry out regular site audits. Additionally, it said it would prune any encroachment growth on shrubs and hedges during winter months. It apologised for the service and said it would monitor to ensure standards are maintained but would not offer compensation as it responded quickly to her concerns.
  5. In the resident’s escalation request, she said that gardening services were a concern back in May 2021 and that there had been no improvement in gardening services despite promises from the landlord and that this was not a single incident of poor maintenance. The landlord issued its stage 2 (final) response on 23 September 2022. It agreed that the garden standard was not acceptable. It, however, said its photos of September 2021 showed improvements made by its contractor but appreciated this level had not continued, which led to termination and subsequent replacement with a new contractor and this change, along with a new specification and enhanced site audits, took time. It noted that a recent inspection found that there were leaf collection and encroachment pruning issues which would be resolved over the next visit and further work would be carried out to bring the hedge heights in line with its standards. It offered a gesture of goodwill of £50 for not responding to the resident’s complaint within its timescales.
  6. In response, the resident disagreed with the stage 2 response. In summary, she felt that the changes made and work carried out by the landlord to correct its own mismanagement of the service was not enough to put things right. The landlord reviewed its stage 2 response on 11 October 2022. It acknowledged its service may have fallen short in some areas but said it had acted quickly on feedback and covered additional work in recognition of shortcomings in its service.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 31 October 2022. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and said this matter had been raised in resident meetings but despite promises of improvements, this did not happen. She commented that the maintenance service had since improved but that between 2020 and 2021 it was below standard. As a resolution to her complaint, she is seeking compensation for the period during which the landlord did not carry out the garden maintenance to an appropriate standard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the resident was in dialogue with the landlord in 2021 about the standard of the garden maintenance. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until June 2022, to which the landlord sent its final response on 23 September 2022 with a further response on 11 October 2022 to comments made by her. Due to the time that had passed, this report will consider the relevant events from around 6 months prior to the resident’s submission of her formal complaint to the landlord’s final response of October 2022.  This is because the Ombudsman expects a resident to bring a formal complaint to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time, normally within 6 months of the matter arising.
  2. It is also noted that the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the service charges for garden maintenance. She has stated that it was unacceptable that leaseholders pay £7,000 for this service and do not get value for money, and she has consistently requested a credit to her service charge by way of compensation. Paragraph 42 (e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns and will examine whether the landlord followed its policies and treated the resident fairly in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the quality of the grounds maintenance service and the associated enquiries about her service charges

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The lease confirms that the landlord is to maintain, tidy and cultivate any grassed areas garden or floral areas within the common parts and to maintain and keep tidy the car parking areas within the common parts. The lease also confirms the resident must pay the landlord a service charge which pays for the maintenance services provided. This is also detailed in the service charge policy which states the landlord remains responsible for providing communal services and recovering these costs from leaseholders.
  4. The landlord’s landscape maintenance specification states that the contractor is to carry out works including:
    1. All grassed areas cut twice a month from March to October and once a month from November to February.
    2. All grass cuttings must be removed and all footpaths, car parks swept with broom after cutting.
    3. All edges and borders are to be trimmed and edged behind curb so as to leave grassed area or footpaths clearly defined.
    4. All flower beds and shrub beds are to be weeded and hoed once a month from April to October.
    5. Shrubs and bushes pruned on a regular basis as and when ensuring not overgrown (no higher than any window ledge).
    6. Hedge areas cut on regular basis and not higher than 1m.
    7. All footpaths and car parks to be kept free of weeds at all times.
  5. The landlord’s grounds maintenance service webpage states:
    1. It increased the number of annual visits to sites to 20 (16 summer visits, 4 winter visits).
    2. It set out a more detailed specification for contractors which will allow for more robust monitoring.
    3. It outlined a requirement for its contractor to provide a schedule of visits for each site.
  6. The landlord has an obligation to provide the services listed in the lease, for which the resident will pay a service charge. The substance of the resident’s complaint about the grounds maintenance was that she was dissatisfied with the standard of the work. A landlord should have a robust procedure in place for monitoring its contractors to ensure that the work which is charged to residents is carried out to an acceptable standard. Upon receiving reports that garden maintenance service is substandard or of poor quality, it is good practice for the landlord to investigate and address the resident’s concerns, and provide accurate information regarding the outcome of its investigation and the steps it will take to resolve any issues it has identified.
  7. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the knowledge of its gardening contractor, which has qualified experts in gardening maintenance. However, it should have a robust way of monitoring the contractor’s work without relying on feedback from residents. The resident said in her complaint that had residents not complained about the issue, she was dubious if anything would have been done.
  8. The landlord and the resident both agreed that the communal garden maintenance fell below the expected standard. Initially, the landlord contacted its contractor within reasonable time frames and asked the contractors to rectify the poor standard of gardening. Its records indicate it took steps including withholding payment for the work that was completed to a poor standard, bringing in additional resources from its in-house team at no charge to leaseholders, and arranging for its environmental service team to manage the contract from April 2022. It also reviewed the gardening maintenance contract specification and schedule and implemented changes which applied to the new contractor appointed in April 2022. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
  9. However, it appears that the landlord had been failing to effectively monitor the work of its gardening contractor. This is suggested by its initial decision to support the existing contractor with additional resources from its in-house team.  Further, although enhanced audits were introduced in April 2022, it does not appear that feedback was passed to the new contractor given that the May 2022 inspection sheet shows failures with respect to weed control and tidying of borders as well as overgrown hedges. This pattern continued despite the resident’s formal complaint in June 2022 with the same failures in the September 2022 inspection sheet; failure with respect to weed control and tidying of borders in October 2022 and July 2023; and failure with respect to overgrown shrubs/hedges in August 2022 and June 2023. There was also failure to keep hard surfaces free of weeds, moss and algae during August, September and October 2022.
  10. It was appropriate to make changes if its contractor did not put things right or improve its service, which the landlord did by appointing a new contractor from April 2022. However, as noted, there were still failings in the level of service and the resident continued to send pictures of overgrown vegetation to the landlord, in June and September 2022. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged in its response of September 2022 that “the current garden standard is not acceptable”.
  11. While overgrown weeds, shrubs and hedges did not impact the resident’s ability to occupy her property, it is unsightly and affected the appearance of the estate which may have caused undue distress to the resident. The landlord failed to deal satisfactorily with the garden maintenance that was its responsibility and the circumstances adversely affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home for longer than was reasonable. This would have caused distress to the resident.
  12. In both formal responses, the landlord said it provided additional resources to carry out extra work at no cost to the leaseholders and that it did not pass on the grounds maintenance auditing costs. This was inappropriate for the landlord to comment as it was initially its inability to manage its contractor, effectively monitor the gardens and provide a good standard of service. As such, it decided to bring in additional resources. However, it should not use this as a reasoning for not charging the residents and it was a remedy to rectify its own errors. Additionally, it would be inappropriate for the costs of auditing the grounds maintenance to be passed onto as  an extra costs to the leaseholder as this element of the maintenance would be covered within the overall service charge.
  13. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of poor garden maintenance. As stated above, it failed to effectively monitor the contractors’ performance and, following reports of issues with the gardening service, should have carried out checks in a timely manner in order for any work that did not meet an appropriate standard to be communicated effectively to the gardening team and matters put right in a timely fashion. The time taken to effect improvements in its service was unreasonably long. It is also evident that some issues continued beyond the landlord’s final response, and, without a robust monitoring plan in place, the landlord continued to rely on the resident to report issues.
  14. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that, presently, a member of the landlord’s staff is happy for residents to show him any issues with the garden maintenance and he will do his best to resolve them. The resident is pleased about this, but she felt that such an arrangement should have been set up by the landlord much sooner. A recommendation has been made in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process under its complaint resolution policy. Its complaint policy mentions early resolution (informal stage) which involves aiming to resolve complaints informally at first point of contact and working with the resident to achieve a satisfactory resolution as quickly as possible. If the complaint is unable to be resolved informally, stage 1 will be automatically initiated. The landlord aims to provide acknowledgement within 2 working days and stage 1 response in writing within 10 working days. If the complainant is not satisfied with the stage 1 complaint, they may request an escalation. The stage 2 review is carried out by a director. The director will introduce themselves and acknowledge the complaint, explain the process and gather any further information needed. A stage 2 response will be provided in writing within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 15 June 2022; however, she did not receive acknowledgement until 3 August 2022. This was 35 working days later and after the resident chased twice. This would have caused frustration to the resident. Subsequently, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 August 2022. This was 39 working days after the initial complaint was made and was outside its service standards of 10 working days in its complaints policy.
  3. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 12 August 2022 which was acknowledged by the customer resolutions team who stated the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and that a director would carry out a review and provide a response by 13 September 2022. While the customer resolution acknowledgement was within 2 working days and did confirm the name of the director who would undertake the review and its timescales, in line with its complaints policy, the director should have also contacted the resident to  acknowledge the complaint, explain the process and gather further information to help their understanding of the complaint. This did not happen and is a failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 September 2022. This was a timeframe of 29 working days from the escalation request and, again, was outside its service standards for issuing a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This delay would have caused further distress to the resident. However, it is noted that the landlord acted fairly by responding to the resident’s comments of 26 September 2022 following the stage 2 response.
  5. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s complaints within its published timescales and its offer of £50 for this, which was in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, was proportionate to the adverse impact caused by the delays across its formal responses. However, it did not put right the failures in acknowledgments and administrative errors. Its failure to act in accordance with its own policy resulted in extra effort from the resident to progress her complaint.
  6. When the resident made her formal complaint, she copied in landlord staff members with whom she had previously liaised and as a result the landlord erroneously set up two complaints references. This was a mistake on the landlord’s part and may have led to confusion as the resident appeared to have multiple complaints ongoing. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge and apologise for this error; however, the landlord should have robust systems in place to prevent a new complaint reference being set up for an existing complaint. In light of this, a recommendation has been made below.
  7. Overall, across its formal responses there were complaint handling failures which it did not adequately put right. It did not acknowledge the complaint at stage 1 in a timely manner nor did a director acknowledge the complaint at stage 2. The resident made concerted efforts to request updates and progress her complaint which was avoidable had the landlord followed its own policy. This amounts to service failure and an order has been made to offer a remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s concerns about the quality of the grounds maintenance service and the associated enquiries about her service charges.
    2. the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a further £150 comprising of:
      1. £100 for its failures to implement effective changes in its gardening service following a formal complaint.
      2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Pay the resident £50 the gesture of goodwill offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord is ordered to contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training relation to their application of the complaints policy, to ensure that the complaint handling failings, such as duplicate complaint references and formal stage acknowledgments, in the resident’s case do not occur again in the future.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord ensures it robustly monitors the service provided by its contractors. A site manager should inspect the gardens and car park, as frequently as it considers necessary, to identify any areas that need attention and feedback to its contractors to rectify at the earliest instance.
  3. It is recommended that a member of the landlord’s staff continues to liaise with residents regarding any concerns they have about the maintenance of the garden, to demonstrate to residents that they are being listened to and their feedback is being acted on at a local level.