The Community Housing Group Limited (202417612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417612

The Community Housing Group Limited

16 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports that items left in the communal garden area were a health and safety risk.
2. The resident’s request for a management move.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bed ground floor flat. The flat is within a scheme of 4 similar general needs properties which have shared access to a communal garden. He has lived in the property for 12 years.
The resident has disclosed mobility issues associated with a brain tumour. Due to his vulnerabilities the resident’s sister has represented him in his complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman. For clarity we will refer to both the resident and his representative as ‘the resident’.
In August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about items left in the communal garden. He stated they were a hazard and prevented him from safely moving around.
On 13 June 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He was unhappy with the way the landlord has responded to his concerns about items left in the communal garden. He referred to a large outdoor storage box, an outdoor tap, a washing line, and several plant pots. The resident said the landlord had on several occasions agreed to address the issue but kept “overturning” decisions it had made. As a resolution he asked the landlord to uphold its previous decisions or to give him a management move to another property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024. It said it needed to balance the needs of all residents who used the space “equally”. It advised it would assist the resident in applying to the local authority’s choice based lettings (CBL) scheme. The landlord said it would ask all residents to remove plant pots from the lawn (except for 4 pots). It also said it would also ask his neighbour to:
1. Move the large storage box back from the footpath.
2. Remove the fixings from the outdoor tap when not in use.
3. Put the washing line away when not in use. It would not instruct them to remove the box at the base as this was integral to its use.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his concerns on 9 July 2024. He said that he had been unable to go out for 10 months due to obstacles and that it was not taking risks to his safety seriously. The resident asked the landlord to clarify what action it was taking and reconsider his request for a management move. He also asked it to agree not to grant permissions for things that would obstruct the lawn or pathway.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 August 2024. It said it understood that his neighbour had not moved the storage box or removed the tap or plant pots. The landlord:
1. Agreed not to grant permissions to any alterations to the communal gardens without consulting with the resident first.
2. Said it could not offer him a management move to a bungalow and that he would need to register for CBL. It said this would ensure a “fair and transparent allocations process”.
3. Said that within 28 days it would:
  1. Relocate the storage box.
  2. Install a grab rail above the outdoor tap as a “safety barrier” should a fall occur when the tap was in place.
  3. Install a rotary drier with a base concreted level to the ground.
  4. Write to all residents to remind them to remove any items from the communal garden. If they failed to do so by 15 September 2024 it would remove anything left.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. He has stated that the landlord has not fulfilled the promises made in its final complaint response and that the situation has worsened preventing him from using the outside space.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports that items left in the communal garden area were a health and safety risk.

The resident raised concerns to the landlord in August 2023 that items left in the communal garden by his neighbours were a risk to his health and safety. He raised these concerns on several occasions before making a formal complaint.
The landlord is aware that the resident has a brain tumour which affects his mobility and that he is therefore at a higher risk of falls. It is also aware that part of his skull has been removed and therefore if he were to fall, he would be at greater risk of serious injury.
Given the resident’s concerns about risks to his safety, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment. We have seen no evidence that it did so. The landlord has stated that it did not carry out a risk assessment because the resident is in general needs accommodation. We do not consider that this is a reasonable response.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the communal areas. Where a risk has been highlighted in an area the landlord is responsible for, it has a duty to investigate and act to mitigate any risks. Such a duty does not only exist in the case of supported or extra care accommodation. That it has not carried out a risk assessment in this case is therefore a serious failing. We have ordered it to do so.
The tenancy agreement includes a clause that requires residents not to “obstruct or keep or leave…any other belongings including…plants or ornaments, or anything which could constitute a trip…hazard in or on any Communal Areas and/or on the Estate.” It goes on to state that it may remove belongings that are left in these areas. The resident would therefore reasonably expect that the landlord would hold his neighbour to this condition. It has not however done so in this case. This was unreasonable.
In December 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had not given his neighbour permission to install a washing line and would ask them to remove it. The next month it said his neighbour had agreed to move the storage box and to remove the tap and fixings when it was not in use. A month later it noted that they had not done as agreed and that it would write to them.
The landlord’s communications gave the resident a reasonable expectation that it was acting to ensure his neighbour moved/removed the items as agreed. We have not however seen evidence that it wrote to the neighbour as it said it would. The landlord therefore failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states it will carry out quarterly inspections of areas such as communal gardens. It carried out an inspection in February 2024. The records from these inspections note that the pathways were “free of slip and trip hazards”. This does not correspond with communications between the landlord and resident which acknowledge that items belonging to his neighbour were encroaching on the pathways.
In June 2024 the landlord told the resident that it had inspected the tap. It said it was happy that provided his neighbour removed it when it was not in use, there was sufficient room for the resident to get past. We have not seen evidence of this inspection or its findings. We therefore cannot assess whether the landlord reasonably applied its findings.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would ask the resident’s neighbour to move the storage box, remove the tap fixings and washing line when not in use, and remove several pots. This created a reasonable expectation for the resident that it would do so. However, we have not seen evidence that it wrote to the resident’s neighbour at this time. This was unreasonable.
In his stage 2 complaint escalation the resident said his neighbour’s items remained in place. He said he had been unable to access the communal gardens for 10 months due to the issue. In the landlord’s response it said it would move the storage box and give residents a further deadline to remove any items from the garden. It said it would remove any items that remained after the deadline.
The landlord also stated that it would install a rotary drier with a concrete base and a grab rail above the tap. It is not clear how the landlord came to the decision to install these items. It has stated that it installed the grab rail above the tap to provide a “safety barrier” in case a fall occurred. The resident has stated that the grab rail has caused a further hazard as it encroaches into the walkway. He has also pointed out that he cannot use the rail as he holds a stick in one hand and uses his other to hold an existing handrail.
As the landlord has said it installed the grab rail for the benefit of the resident, it would have been appropriate for it to have consulted with him before carrying out the work. This would have allowed it to ascertain his needs and ensure the work was meet its intended aims. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
Given the concerns about the resident’s mobility and safety, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost him to his local occupational health service for an assessment. This is usually accessed via a GP. It could then have worked with the occupational therapist to ensure the resident’s needs could be met in his current accommodation. That it did not do so was a missed opportunity to identify and address the resident’s needs.
The resident has stated that the concrete base installed for the rotary drier is also a hazard and could cause him injury if he were to fall. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment in relation to this before completing the work.
The resident has advised The Ombudsman that his neighbour has failed to adhere to the agreement outlined in the stage 2 complaint response. He states that the tap remains in place permanently, the washing line is not taken down when not in use, and that the number of pots on the lawn have increased.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord monitored the area to ensure that the resident’s neighbour had adhered to the agreement. Nor have we seen that that it considered removing items that left by residents as it said it would. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have fulfilled its agreement and that it did not do so has damaged the landlord resident relationship.
The landlord has not acknowledged any failings in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about his health and safety. It has therefore not offered any redress. Given the detriment experienced by the resident this was unreasonable.
While the resident states he has been unable to enjoy the use of the communal garden for a long period, we do not have evidence of this. We have not therefore ordered compensation for reduced use and enjoyment of the area. We have however ordered the landlord to pay £350 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance. We have also ordered the landlord to fulfil the agreement it made to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response.
Overall, despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord failed to carry out any risk assessment and failed to signpost the resident for support. It also created a reasonable expectation by telling the resident on several occasions it would ask his neighbour to move/remove their items. It then caused avoidable disappointment when it failed to ensure this was done. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that items left in the communal garden area were a health and safety risk to him.

The resident’s request for a management move.

As a resolution to his complaint the resident requested a management transfer.
The landlord’s lettings policy states it will allocate “most” of its properties via the local authority CBL scheme. However, it states “on some occasions” it will support residents to move outside of the “usual lettings process” via a management move. The policy specifically mentions cases of serious antisocial behaviour and domestic violence but does not limit management moves to such circumstances.
The wording of the policy could reasonably include the resident’s circumstances. He reported that his health and safety was at risk due to his vulnerability combined with the issue of complaint. This could reasonably be a “serious risk of harm” and “complex and difficult circumstances” as outlined in the policy.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that he needed to apply to move via the local authority CBL system. It did not respond to his request for an internal management transfer. This was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it “could not” offer him a “direct let”. We note that the landlord’s policy and procedure does not refer to direct lets and it is likely that it used this term interchangeably with the term management move. The use of such terms was unhelpful and may have caused avoidable confusion for the resident.
The landlord reiterated that the resident needed to apply for a move via the local authority CBL system. It did not however explain why it could not offer him a managed move. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to explain in its complaint response why it felt he did not meet the criteria for a management move. That it did not was unreasonable and caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.
The landlord’s management move procedure states that when a resident requests a management move it will complete a ‘management move request form’. It also states that it will hold a case review to discuss the case and make a decision. It says it will then communicate the decision to the resident in person and, if it refuses the request, explain why.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord completed a request form in this case or that it held a case meeting. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident that it was refusing a management move and why. It therefore cannot demonstrate the justification behind its decision and that this was reasonable. This was inappropriate and a failure to adhere to its policy. We have ordered that it assess the resident’s request for a management move in line with its procedure.
The landlord has not acknowledged any failings in its response to the resident’s request for a management move. As a result it has not offered any redress. Its handling of the issue has caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We have therefore ordered it to pay £200 in accordance with our remedies guidance.
Overall, the landlord failed to follow its policy and procedure in response to the resident’s request for a management move. It therefore cannot demonstrate that its decision was reasonable and in line with its policy. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It took the landlord 16 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This exceeds the 10 working day timeframe outline in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its complaint response. This was unreasonable.
The landlord took 21 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. While this only slightly exceeded the timeframe in the Code and its policy it should have acknowledged this within its response and provided an apology.
The Code states that where a landlord proposed a remedy, this must be followed through to completion. The landlord has not done so in this case as the remedies it proposed in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses remain outstanding. This is unreasonable.
The above failings have caused the resident avoidable time and trouble. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation in relation to its complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint and failed to follow through on the remedies it proposed. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that items left in the communal garden area were a health and safety risk.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £650 which comprises:
  1. £350 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns that items left in the communal garden area were a health and safety risk to him.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s request for a management move.
  3. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
3. Carry out a risk assessment of the communal garden with particular regard for the items raised in the resident’s complaint.
4. Remove the plant pots from the lawn and pathways and ensure the washing line and tap are removed when not in use. It should also explain to the resident how it will monitor the issue to ensure the agreement made in its final complaint response is adhered to.
5. Assess the resident’s request for a management move in line with its procedure.