Stockport Homes Limited (202326007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326007

Stockport Homes Limited

23 June 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 handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house with a garden on its east side. The landlord has recorded that the resident has endometriosis and other health conditions.
3. On 23 May 2023 the resident reported issues with the drainage in her garden. The landlord responded by saying that they did not have record of anything being raised in the defect period in relation to the garden. It also advised to avoid the affected area.
4. On 21 September 2023 the resident followed up with the landlord as to what could be done to improve her garden so it was not as damp.
5. On 18 December 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint over the phone with the landlord. The complaint was recorded by the landlord as the drainage to the garden was ineffective and this meant patches of the lawn did not grow. Also that it was dangerous to walk on and the resident had concerns when she had a flare up of endometriosis as it affected her walking ability.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2024. It said that there was no record of drainage problems reported within the 12-month defects period. This meant the developer would not be liable to carry out work to the garden area. It also clarified that it is obliged to work within the relevant legislation, which generally sets out that landlords are not responsible for the maintenance of individual gardens. Lastly, it declined to install artificial grass requested by the resident, as this can cause issues if installed in an area with a high ground water table, as was the case here.
7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 9 January 2024. She said she “had to jump around bits of grass to get to the other side of the property”. She also said the “grass stinks”, and it was unfair of the landlord to suggest she maintain it.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 January 2024. It confirmed its earlier view of its stage 1 complaint response; that it was not responsible for maintaining the resident’s garden. It further explained the extent of the water logging from the rain water was at an acceptable tolerance. The landlord also offered to install paving to the garden to allow the resident to more easily navigate.
9. The landlord also referred the resident to its self-referral process to start an application for adaptions to her property. It said depending on the result of the assessment, it may result in financial assistance towards adaptions to her garden.
10. When the resident approached us in February 2024, she said as an outcome she wanted the drainage improved or the grass replaced with artificial grass.

Assessment and findings 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden

11. The tenancy agreement refers to the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985 (the LTA) to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes common areas such as shared gardens.
12. The landlord’s defects guidance provides that during the initial 12 month period after the property is built, residents are able to report issues to the landlord. The landlord will then raise it with the developer to rectify.
13. In this case it is clear that the damp area of the garden (patches of grass) was not affecting the exterior or structure of the property. The garden is also not a common area or shared garden. This is not disputed by the landlord or resident. Therefore the landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, appropriately advised the resident in accordance with its obligations. It referred to its obligations under section 11 of the LTA and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, in making its decision to decline to maintain the resident’s garden. It clearly communicated that it did not have repair obligations for water logged gardens. It was appropriate for it to clearly lay out its obligations at this time.
14. While the landlord’s obligations meant that it could not maintain the resident’s individual garden, it explained why this was the case and what situations would mean it may have to intervene where there are drainage issues. This included examples, such as, where logged water may lead to structural damage, or where health risks may present from the discharge of foul water. It was appropriate of the landlord to take an approach which thoroughly explained the reasoning behind its decision making. While it was not the result the resident was hoping for, it meant the resident could fully understand why it had made its decision.
15. The development of the property in question was completed in 2019. The landlord’s evidence suggests that no issues were reported or recorded about the resident’s garden across the 12 month liability period. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response, that it had checked its own records and the developers, and consulted its internal teams in coming to its position. The landlord also explained how the defects process worked and that the developers would not be liable to review the matter as a defect, as it was not raised in time. These explanations illustrate that it was proactive in its approach by conducting enquiries and reviewing its evidence. This was a reasonable approach to take based on the issues raised by the resident.
16. The landlord also considered the resident’s request for artificial grass in its stage 1 response. Although the landlord’s decision to decline this as an option was not a favourable result for the resident, its response was reasonable as it explained why it did not believe that this would resolve the waterlogging issue and ultimately it was under no obligation to contribute to the cost of these works. This advice set realistic expectations with the resident in the interests of finding an effective solution.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response it further advised the resident about its threshold to assess water logging in gardens. In doing so, it assessed the photographic and video evidence supplied by the resident. The landlord said that although there were signs of water logging, this was “not excessive” or beyond reasonable, and it was not unlike other gardens across the country in winter months. In doing so it made a further informed assessment of the situation. This is another instance of the landlord communicating well with the resident and thoroughly explaining the reasons to uphold its decision.
18. The evidence also shows that the landlord considered the resident’s individual circumstances and explored options for potential solutions to the damp areas of the garden. The landlord, at stage 1, proposed adjustments in the way the resident used the space. It suggested using the pathway around the grass to ensure she could walk around the space, and lessen the risk of slipping over.
19. At stage 2 of the landlord’s process, it further attempted to alleviate her concerns. In doing so, it proposed that it was willing to upgrade the stepping stones at the top of the garden to be more substantial or provide additional flagging for improved access to the back gate. Even though it was not obliged to, this approach demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to explore options to resolving the concerns raised by the resident.
20. The landlord explained, with reference to the resident’s endometriosis, that if the resident wished to she could self-refer to the local authority’s specialist adaption services. The landlord supplied a link to make an application. The intentions of the landlord were well placed here, and provided an another option for the resident to consider to address her concerns.
21. In accordance with its tenancy agreement and repair obligations, the landlord did not have an obligation to maintain the resident’s garden. The landlord took appropriate steps to explain its decision making to the resident and to understand the resident’s concerns. It responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns that were raised and made efforts to alleviate these. Given this, there was no failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden.