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.

Southern Housing (202418976)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418976

Southern Housing

29 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports that it installed the back garden incorrectly.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant since March 2024. The property is a new build, 3 bed house. The resident lives with her children and has said she is disabled. The Ombudsman has not seen information about what the resident’s disability is or that the landlord was aware of this prior to the complaint.
  2. On 22 May 2024 the resident began reporting to the landlord that it had not installed the back garden correctly. She said the garden was uneven and waterlogged. She said she believed this was because the landlord had laid the grass directly on top of rubble without any topsoil or drainage. She also said she felt the garden was unusable and not fit for purpose.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 10 June 2024. She said the landlord had installed the garden without enough topsoil or drainage and this had made the garden uneven and waterlogged. She said she felt the garden was unsafe and she could not let her children play in it. She said she had reported these issues to the developer and they had come to look at the garden. However, she said they did not carry out any tests but just said it was fine and would settle over time. She said she believed the garden did not meet regulatory standards and she wanted the landlord to reinstall it properly.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2024. It confirmed the garden was not unsafe and that it had spoken to the developer regarding the resident’s concerns. It said that based on its investigation it did not agree that the entire garden needed to be returfed on the basis of 1 or 2 isolated areas. Instead it suggested that it:
    1. Visit the property and check 3 or 4 areas of the garden to ascertain its make-up.
    2. If the issues are found only in the areas the resident had highlighted, then it would look to carry out remedial works to those areas.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 November 2024. She said she still believed the garden was unsafe and unusable due to insufficient topsoil. She said she felt the developer had not done enough tests during their visits and they had ignored the unevenness throughout the garden. She also said that she felt the landlord was not listening to her concerns and was relying on the developers reports without carrying out its own inspection of the garden. In order to resolve the complaint she said she wanted someone to visit and investigate the garden ‘professionally and thoroughly’. She said she would prefer an independent third party to carry out this investigation as she no longer trusted either the developer or the landlord.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 December 2024. It said it had emailed her on 13 November 2024 to confirm the developers had acknowledged that some isolated areas needed remedial works and offered to carry out the works. It said the developer would carry out the works in the spring once the weather had improved and inspections would be carried out at the end of the next year (2025).
  7. On 21 January 2025 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She said she remained unhappy with the landlords complaint responses because she felt her concerns had not been adequately addressed. She also said that she felt her request for a qualified third party to inspect the garden was justified but the landlord had ignored this.
  8. On 8 August 2025 the resident told this Service that the garden was still not level and there was almost no grass growing. She said that 3 months before the landlord had attended, but it had only put some soil on the patchy areas and scattered some seeds.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s Empty Home Standard leaflet says that prior to a tenant moving into a property with a private garden it will:
    1. We will clear the garden area of any rubbish.
    2. We will fill any garden ponds.
    3. We will cut back overgrown vegetation.
    4. We will remove any trees within an unsafe distance of the property.
    5. We will remove any diseased, self-sown/ sapling trees and any fast-growing varieties.
    6. We will ensure any remaining trees are of a manageable size.
    7. We will ensure all paths and paving are sound and free from trip hazards.
    8. We will leave boundary walls, fencing and gates in a safe condition.

It also says that once this is achieved and the tenant moves in, the upkeep of the garden is their responsibility.

  1. On 22 May 2024 the resident reported that she believed the garden had been installed unevenly. She said she believed it had less than 10cm of topsoil and did not meet the regulations for the design and construction of new homes. She said this had caused the garden to be very lumpy and an area at the back had a dip which was becoming waterlogged due to the unevenness as well as a lack of drainage. The landlord responded to the resident the same day and confirmed it had arranged a visit by the developer for the 28 May 2024.
  2. Following the visit on 28 May 2024 the landlord received the developer’s report on 3 July 2024. They said they had found that:
    1. The garden was not uneven. It said that when the garden gets wet it causes undulations which give the impression of it being uneven. They also said the dip at the back of the garden was caused by the heavy rain over the previous 6 to 8 months.
    2. The grass dying was normal because it was left unattended to grow and then mowed so the exposed grass needed time to recover. It also said the pictures it had seen indicated that the grass was recovering well.
    3. The garden was safe to be used.
    4. No remedial works were necessary. However, it offered to provide some topsoil to ‘top dress’ the back right hand corner of the garden.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 July 2024 and explained the developer’s findings.

  1. Landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary. In this instance, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to ask the developer to inspect the garden following the resident’s report of issues. It also requested and carried out the inspection within a reasonable timeframe. That said, the Ombudsman has noted that the developer did not specifically refer to the resident’s concern that it had installed the garden with less than 10cm of topsoil.
  2. On 5 July 2024 the resident responded to the landlord. She disagreed with all the developer’s findings and said they were ‘nonsense’. She also declined its offer to add topsoil to the dipped area at the back of the garden. She said she believed the landlord was not dealing with the issues fairly because it was only relying on the developers findings rather than investigating the garden itself.
  3. The landlord wrote to the developer on 8 July 2024. It said that based on the resident’s evidence it agreed that it had not installed the garden properly, required clearing and returfing on top of 10cm of topsoil. It also asked for the developer to arrange this with the resident.
  4. The developer responded to the landlord around 10 July 2024. They said they had looked at photos from before it laid the grass and these showed the ground was topsoiled and levelled. However, it acknowledged the photos did not show the depth of the topsoil. It said it did not agree that the entire garden needed to be returfed and recommended that it attend to check 3 or 4 areas to determine the make-up of the garden. It said that if it finds that it is only the areas highlighted by the resident that are the problem, it would look at carrying out remedial works to those areas.
  5. Given the landlord had come to agree with the resident that there were issues with the garden based on the evidence she had provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to put this to developer and ask it to take steps to address this. It was also appropriate for the landlord to put forward the developers suggested solution in its stage 1 response dated 19 July 2024 and ask the resident to confirm if she accepted this.
  6. The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response to express her dissatisfaction with it out 29 July 2024. Although she did not confirm whether or not she accepted the suggested resolution and instead asked the landlord to arrange an inspection of the garden by a third party. The resident then chased the landlord for a response to her email on 28 August 2024 as she had not received any further updates about the garden issues. Based on the evidence seen, the landlord did not respond to the resident or chase her for confirmation of her acceptance of the suggested resolution until 12 September 2024. This was unreasonable and caused a delay in the landlord arranging for the developer to inspect the garden further. Furthermore, this cannot but have caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord for a response and she had previously said in her reports that she felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  7. The resident accepted the landlord’s suggested inspection on 12 September 2024 and this took place on 10 October 2024. The records seen show that during the inspection the developer cut 3 pits in different areas of the garden and confirmed that the topsoil depth was between 10 to 20cm. It therefore concluded that it had laid the topsoil correctly. However, the developer acknowledged there were some isolated areas that need remedial works. The landlord communicated these findings to the resident on 14 October 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to have arranged this inspection and it did so within a reasonable timescale.
  8. On the 14 October 2024 the resident disagreed with the inspections findings. In response, the landlord contacted the warranty company to request if it could offer a defect resolution service for the reported issues. Based on the developer’s findings during the previous inspection, the landlord was not obligated to contact the warranty company for assistance. It was therefore more than reasonable for it to contact them and enquire about any service they could provide. In this instance, the warranty company responded on 23 October 2024 and confirmed the defects insurance excluded any responsibility for external landscaping or garden features.
  9. The landlord informed the resident of the warranty company’s decision on 6 November 2024 and confirmed that it would review the garden at the end of the defects period. The resident responded on 13 November 2024. She continued to dispute the developer’s findings and reported ongoing issues with the unevenness of the garden and the dip at the back being waterlogged. The landlord then advised the resident on 22 November 2024 that the developer would carry out the remedial works it identified in the spring once the weather improved. Despite the delay this caused to the remedial works, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to plan gardening works for a season which it considered most appropriate.
  10. The Ombudsman appreciates that throughout the resident has disputed the landlord’s inspection findings and said she feels the best way to resolve this would be to have an independent inspection carried out. However, as previously mentioned in this report, landlords are entitled to rely on information provided by their contractors in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary. In this instance, the inspections carried out by the developer showed that while there were areas in need of remedial work, it had installed the rest of the garden with enough topsoil. A landlord would not be expected to instruct an independent survey unless there was evidence to suggest that one was required.
  11. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 26 August 2025 that it started the remedial works on 2 April 2025 and completed them on 6 April 2025.
  12. Overall, based on all the information provided, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the garden.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports that it installed the back garden incorrectly.