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

Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202211712)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211712

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

24 May 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. the level of service charge for ground maintenance;
    2. the standards of ground maintenance.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

e) concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint related to the amount she is paying for the service charge and the obligation to pay the service charge given the standard of work.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charge for the ground maintenance is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident has the option to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. As per its obligations in the lease agreement, the landlord arranges for ground maintenance. This is paid for by the resident through the service charge.
  3. On 15 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the standard and frequency of the ground maintenance. She advised that it was her understanding that the landlord intended to increase the service charge for remedial works that had not been completed as part of the usual ground maintenance.
  4. The landlord attended a site visit on 20 October 2021.
  5. In its stage one complaint response, it confirmed that although the ground maintenance had been completed to a satisfactory standard, some minor improvements were required, which it would carry out on a “rolling programme as weather and seasons allow,” and that this would be completed at no additional cost to residents.
  6. It also noted that “any other increase in visits or change to standards would need to have a consultation with all residents before any changes could be made, due to a potential increase in service charges to deliver an enhanced service.”
  7. The resident raised a further complaint in July 2022. She remained unhappy with the standard of the ground maintenance service. She noted that the service charge had increased, and she did not consider this was justified. She advised that there were overgrown weeds and knotweed on neighbouring land and that her garden grass had not been cut.
  8. As the complaint was similar to the previous 2021 complaint, the landlord escalated it to stage two immediately.
  9. The landlord made another site visit on 22 July 2022, to assess the ground maintenance as part of its complaint procedure.
  10. In its stage two complaint response on 12 August 2022, the landlord advised that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it had handled her concerns in line with its policies. The resident’s personal belongings had prevented the grass in her garden from being cut, and as soon as these personal belongings were moved, the grass would be cut. In relation to the weeds and knotweed on a neighbouring property, the landlord stated that it had been in touch with the owner of that land and had agreed to treat the knotweed but not cut back the weeds. It assured the resident that it would cut back any overhanging weeds from the neighbouring land where it was safe to do so. In addition. it confirmed that it would plant shade-resistant grass seed in the future to address some of the resident’s concerns.
  11. The resident referred her complaint to this service via her MP on 28 August 2022, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and her concerns remained about the way in which the landlord calculated the service charges. The resident believed that this resulted in “residents not receiving the services they should be” and paying a “seriously inflated rate.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to previous ground maintenance issues dating back to 2020 in her complaint. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from May 2021 onward, which is six months prior to the formal complaint being made in October 2021.

Assessment

  1. Upon receiving complaints regarding the standard of ground maintenance, it is expected that the landlord should carry out a reasonable investigation to satisfy itself that its obligations are being met. The landlord completed two inspections after the reports were made on 20 October 2021, and 22 July 2022. This was reasonable and in accordance with good practise.
  2. After the visit, the landlord identified areas that suffered from poor lighting and water logging, which impacted the growth of the grass. As a resolution, it informed the resident that during the autumn season it would plant shade-resistant seeding in an attempt to grow these areas of grass. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, as it identified the issue and sought a way to resolve it for the resident.
  3. The landlord also informed the resident that the personal belongings in the area meant that the grass could not be cut. This was due to the contractor not having permission or the ability to move it, as this would be the resident’s responsibility. It is not evident why this was not communicated to the resident sooner so she could ensure that the next time a visit took place, this area was free from personal belongings. Nevertheless, it was appropriate that the landlord explained what she needed to do going forward.
  4. In addition, the landlord noted that the resident had enclosed a small area of the communal areas, which could have indicated to the gardeners that this was private land, and as such, they were concerned they would be trespassing onto the property if gardening was completed in this area. The landlord informed the resident that this would be reviewed to ensure that the contractors knew to enter the enclosed area in the future.
  5. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the overgrown weeds and knotweeds on neighbouring land, as the landlord is not the owner of this land, it was limited in the actions it could take. However, it did contact the owner of the land and requested that action be taken to cut back any overgrown weeds and knotweeds. In addition, it assured the resident that it would cut any overhanging weeds or knotweed that encroached on the resident’s property. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable action in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint in consideration of the limited action it could take.

Determination

  1. As noted above, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charge for the ground maintenance is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of the ground maintenance.