Together Housing Association Limited (202419414)

Decision
Case ID	202419414
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Together Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

The resident has lived in the property since June 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. It has a front, rear, and side garden which the resident has sole use of. There is a hedge at the front of the property which boarders the footpath. There is a boundary hedge in the side garden between the resident’s property and her neighbour. The resident has physical and mental health conditions. Her physical health conditions mean she is unable to maintain her garden and hedges. The landlord is aware of her vulnerabilities. The resident is unhappy because the landlord stopped maintaining her garden and hedges in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Decision to stop maintaining the resident’s garden.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the decision to stop maintaining the resident’s garden.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found that the landlord:

Decision to stop maintaining the resident’s garden

Was not obliged to maintain the resident’s garden due to her having sole use of it. Did not provide clear information to the resident regarding what the garden maintenance charge on her tenancy agreement covered. Failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding a temporary arrangement to maintain her garden. Failed to remind the resident the temporary arrangement was coming to an end.

Complaint handling

Failed to comply with the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code at stage 1 and stage 2.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling for its decision to stop maintaining the resident’s garden. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is provided by a manager.
The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

26 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows:

£200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling for its decision to stop maintaining the resident’s garden.
£150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

26 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should provide information to the resident again on agencies who may be able to assist her with maintaining her garden.
The landlord should consider if there is anything it can do to reduce the size of the resident’s garden. This may make it easier for her to maintain.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 May 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had breached the terms of her tenancy agreement by not maintaining her garden.
7 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
20 June 2024	The landlord informed the resident it required additional time to complete its investigation. It would respond by 4 July 2024.
20 June 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said the service charge on the resident’s tenancy was for maintenance of hedges across the estate. It removed this service charge in 2019 following a challenge from the local council housing benefit department. As the affected properties were for older residents, it had continued to provide the service for existing residents. As the resident’s home had a private garden it had never included a garden maintenance service for her garden. The landlord put a management plan in place in 2019 when it found Japanese Knotweed (JKW) in the resident’s garden. In 2020 it agreed to cut the resident’s grass until the treatment period had ended. The treatment ended in 2023. The landlord accepted it should have reminded the resident it would stop cutting her grass when it stopped the treatment. The landlord apologised for the confusion and distress. It offered £50 compensation. It said it had asked its contractor if it would provide the service to the resident on a private arrangement. The contractor had refused. It said it would help the resident find a local gardener if she wanted it to.
12 July 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint.
6 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said it received the resident’s escalation request on 2 July 2024. The landlord upheld what it said at stage 1 response. It said it would refer the resident to its tenancy sustainability service to help her find a gardener.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to maintain her garden again.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s decision to stop maintaining the resident’s garden.
Finding	Service failure

What we won’t look at

When the resident brought the complaint to us, she told us she continued to struggle maintaining her garden after her complaint. She has been unable to instruct a private gardener because she says the JKW had returned. We have looked at issues up to August 2024, which is when the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s complaint procedure. Any problems that happened after this date, and have not been raised in a formal complaint, should be taken up with the landlord as a new complaint if needed.

What we will look at

The resident complained that the landlord had breached the terms of the tenancy agreement by not maintaining her garden. The tenancy agreement clearly states residents are responsible for maintaining the garden where they have exclusive use of it. This includes cutting the grass, trimming hedges and shrubs. In this case, the resident had the sole use of the front, rear, and side gardens and therefore she was responsible to maintain them.
The tenancy agreement shows there was a service charge for grounds maintenance at the start of the tenancy. The resident said when she signed for the property the landlord told her the charge was for it to maintain her garden. We have not seen any record of what the landlord told the resident at sign up. Therefore, we cannot say what the parties discussed. However, the landlord has never provided a maintenance service for the part of the garden of which she has exclusive use.
In December 2018 the landlord wrote to all residents informing them it would be removing the grounds maintenance service charge in April 2019. This was following a decision by the local council that housing benefit would not cover garden maintenance. The letter confirmed residents with a hedge would be responsible for the maintenance of it from 3 April 2019. The resident says she did not receive this letter. As it was a generic mail merge letter, and there are no addresses included on the landlord’s copy, we cannot be sure the landlord sent it to the resident. We understand the landlord removed the grounds maintenance charged in April 2019 but continued to provide the service.
It was reasonable that the landlord continued to provide the grounds maintenance service. However, it should have been clearer on what this service was. In this case, the landlord was only responsible to maintain the hedge to the front of the property, adjoining the footpath. The resident had another hedge, which was a boundary between her and her neighbour. The resident was responsible to maintain this hedge, on her side of the boundary, because it was in the garden she had sole use of. Her neighbour was responsible to maintain the other side of the hedge. The information given to the resident at this time was not clear. This caused confusion.
Landlords should be able to explain what a service charge is for, when general terms are used such as ‘maintenance’. In its complaint responses the landlord said grounds maintenance was a broad term which covered any type of garden maintenance. For the resident’s estate it was to maintain hedges in and around the scheme, which the landlord was responsible for. It was not clear from the landlord’s response which of the resident’s hedges it would maintain.
In June 2019 the resident reported her gardener had found JKW in her garden. It is reasonable to assume the resident understood the garden was her responsibility at this time. This is because she referred to ‘her gardener’ in her communication with the landlord.
The landlord inspected the garden. In October 2019 it put a management plan in place to treat and get rid of the JKW. The plan outlined it would need to treat and monitor the JKW until at least September 2023.
In June 2020 the landlord applied for internal funding to pay for maintenance of the resident’s garden. It stated the reason for the application was because the resident’s gardener was reluctant to cut the grass due to the presence of JKW. The landlord’s contractors would use caution when maintaining the garden to prevent spreading. The application was successful. It was reasonable that the landlord made this application.
In March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord on at least 4 occasions to ask when the gardeners would attend. We can see the landlord responded to the resident’s contacts and left voicemail messages. On 10 April 2024 it told the resident the temporary service had ended because it had finished the treatment and monitoring of the JKW.
In its complaint responses the landlord accepted it should have reminded the resident that the temporary service was coming to an end in April 2024. However, in addition to this, at the beginning of the arrangement the landlord should have clearly set out to the resident what work it would complete and for how long. There is no evidence that it did this. By not doing this the landlord raised the resident’s expectations.
In October 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident about maintenance of the hedges. It included a map to show the hedge the landlord would maintain. This was the front one next to the footpath. It said this was what the service charge was for when the resident first moved into the property. Although it had removed the service charge in 2019, it would continue to maintain this hedge. It would consult with residents if it was planning to end this service. The landlord should have given this information to the resident much earlier in the process.
In summary, there was no failure in the landlord’s decision to stop maintaining the resident’s garden because it was never responsible for this. However, its communication about the service it provided and its handling of the temporary arrangement could have been better. It did not provide clear information to the resident at the start of the arrangement. This raised her expectations. It then failed to tell her when the arrangement was ending. This meant she had not had time to make alternative arrangements, which caused her distress. It also delayed in providing clear information on what hedge it was responsible for. This leads to a finding of service failure.
The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising for the confusion caused. It offered to help the resident find a gardener and made a referral to its tenancy sustainability service. This service visited the resident in October 2024 and gave her details of other agencies who may be able to help her. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the distress caused.
Having considered our remedies guidance a fairer level of compensation would be £200. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication in this case.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
2. At stage 1, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 3 June 2024. It should have sent its stage 1 response no later than 17 June 2024 (15 working days in total). It delayed acknowledging the complaint by 5 working days. This was not consistent with its policy or the Code.
3. It wrote to the resident to inform her it required additional time to complete its investigation. It was right that it did this. However, as the complaint response was due by 17 June 2024 it should have contacted the resident sooner.
4. It sent its stage 1 response on 20 June 2024. This was within the extended timeframe.
5. At stage 2, the landlord said it received the resident’s escalation on 2 July 2024. Due to lack of adequate records we have not seen this. If the landlord received the escalation on 2 July 2024 it should have acknowledged it by 9 July 2024. It should have sent its stage 2 complaint response by no later than 6 August 2024 (25 working days in total). It sent its acknowledgement on 12 July 2024. This was not consistent with its policy or the Code. Its stage 2 response was on time.
6. It failed to acknowledge any complaint handling failures in its responses.
Due to the delays at both stages, there was maladministration. The delays caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. To reflect this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. For example, it should keep copies of individual letters sent via mail merge.

Communication

The landlord should ensure it provides clear information around what a service charge is for, when general terms are used such as ‘maintenance’.
It should also ensure it sets out the terms of any special arrangements it agrees outside its obligations.