Torus62 Limited (202405242)

Background

1. The resident moved to the property by way of a mutual exchange on 15 September 2016. The property is a 3-bedroom end of terrace house with a private rear garden. The resident lives at the property with her 3 children, one of which, the resident has advised, has additional needs.
2. In February 2023, the resident reported that a pergola–like structure in her garden was rotten and falling down. The landlord began works to remove this structure in July 2023, along with the concrete planters and flagging around it. Upon removal it was found that an old pond was buried underneath. The works were completed in November 2023. The resident complained about the condition her garden was left in following these works.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her garden.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found that there was maladministration by the landlord:
   1. In its response to the resident’s concerns about her garden.
   2. In its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. There were avoidable delays in carrying out the works to the garden. The landlord’s communication around this was poor and the resident had to chase for updates on numerous occasions. The landlord’s records do not detail any discussions it had with the resident over these works.
7. The landlord set timescales that it did not keep to throughout its complaint process and there was an avoidable delay at stage 2 of 68 working days where the resident chased the landlord for updates. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its complaint handling failings in its complaint responses or demonstrate any learning from the resident’s complaint.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out routine repairs within 20 calendar days. Its policy allows 60 days for more complex repairs unless there is a health and safety issue. The landlord’s repairs policy and tenancy agreement also states that the tenant agrees to keep their home in good condition and maintain the garden, this includes anything that is not part of the original structure. 
9. The landlord took responsibility of removing the structure following the health and safety concerns raised by the resident. Although the structure, according to its policy and tenancy agreement would be for the resident to maintain, its decision to take responsibility to remove any hazard was appropriate.
10. The resident reported her concerns with the garden structure on 8 March 2023. According to the landlord’s repair records, a surveyor attended, it is not clear when this surveyor attended but a job to remove the hazards in the rear garden was scheduled for 10 May 2023. This was 60 calendar days from when first reported, although its policy does not stipulate whether the 60-day timescale is working or calendar days, this appointment was booked within its repair timescale for complex repairs. However, it is clear the landlord had identified the structure as a ‘hazard’ so it should have considered if this job required a more urgent priority. It is not evident it did so.
11. Additionally, when the appointment was recorded as a no access, the job was cancelled. The landlord’s repair policy says jobs related to potential health and safety issues will not be cancelled when there is a no access. Although the landlord re raised the job the day after, according to its own policy it should not have been cancelled.
12. The landlord originally raised a job to remove the paving and pergola; these works started on 5 July 2023 and were marked as completed on 18 August 2023. However, it was during this time that the landlord discovered the works were more extensive than first thought as a pond was found buried in situ. On 27 July 2023, the landlord decided a mechanical digger was required for it to be able to complete the works. It is evident that the resident raised her concerns about the hole left in the garden on this day as an emergency repair was raised to ‘make safe’.
13. It is evident that the resident chased the landlord for updates on at least 2 occasions following this, before the landlord arranged to meet its contractor on site on 29 September 2023. It is not evident the resident was kept up to date within this 2-month period which was not reasonable. In addition, it is not evident what discussions took place around this work with the resident at the time. The job raised to the contractor included “to remove all brickwork, flags, pergola and pond and topsoil”. It would be reasonable to conclude that the works were not fully agreed as the resident made her complaint a few days after the works had been completed.
14. It took the landlord 8 months to complete the works in the resident’s rear garden before she made her complaint, in this time, it is evident it did not have adequate oversight of the repairs as there were avoidable delays. During this time, its communication to the resident was poor, the resident spent time and trouble chasing it for updates with no recorded communication back.
15. The landlord’s communication continued to be poor following its stage 1 response. This is evidenced as the resident emailed the chief executive on 21 February 2024 to get “some kind of response” after failing to receive any update from the landlord.
16. Part of the resident’s complaint included the numerous inspections of the garden, in an update to the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged that no further works had been raised following an inspection on 23 January 2024 as the resident was responsible for maintaining the garden. It acknowledged that it is not evident the resident was advised of this decision. The resident was advised of its decision in its stage 2 response, some 5 months later, and after another 2 surveyors had attended. This amount of time was unreasonable and resulted in further avoidable time and trouble spent by the resident.
17. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
18. The landlord failed to demonstrate any investigation into its identified failings through its complaint process. It also failed to acknowledge the impact of the garden being left over the period of the summer holidays had on the household, despite the resident making it clear that the garden helped with her child’s wellbeing. It did acknowledge that communication had been poor and delays in carrying out the works to the garden had proved inconvenient. In acknowledgement of this, the resident was offered an apology and £150 compensation.
19. It is noted that the landlord has carried out some further works to the garden which included an area of flagging. It is good that the landlord has acted and tried to reach a resolution with the resident, however it should have done so in a timelier manner. In addition, it had concluded that further hard landscaping, in the form of a flagged area, would further aggravate the problem by contributing to water retention. The landlord has therefore been ordered to carry out an inspection to assess the need for potential additional drainage infrastructure in the garden.
20. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out works to the garden in a timely manner. This has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £550.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It says it will send its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident requesting escalation. At both stages it says that it can extend the timeframe by 10 working days with good reason, as long as the resident is kept updated.
22. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 18 November 2023, the landlord assigned the complaint to its principal contractor to investigate and respond to as it had arranged for the works in question to be carried out, on the Landlords request. This is in line with its procedure that says its principal contractor will respond to complaints at stage 1 if the complaint is about their service provision. It is evident from internal communications that the contractor raised to the landlord whether the resident’s complaint was about how the works were carried out or what the actual works raised were following its discussion with the resident. It is not clear what the landlord’s response to this was. It would have been an appropriate use of discretion for the landlord to oversee the stage 1 response alongside its contractor, its failure to do so resulted in the resident’s complaint not being fully investigated as the contractor could only carry out work it was asked to do by the landlord.
23. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 19 December 2023. This was not actioned and the resident spent further time and trouble chasing the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 22 February 2024, 44 working days later, this amount of time was unreasonable, avoidable, and far outside the landlord’s procedure timescales.
24. Furthermore, its acknowledgement said a response could be expected by 21 March 2024. It is not evident the landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss the complaint in more detail until the day of the deadline it had set. Its delay in contacting the resident meant that it had to delay its final response unnecessarily.
25. It also failed to keep to the timescale it gave to the resident in its conversation on 21 March 2024, it said it had agreed to extend the deadline to the 8 April 2024. It provided an interim response on 16 April 2024 which said a visit needed to take place before a full response could be given.
26. The landlord’s communication failings continued following this visit, the resident had to chase the landlord on 3 separate occasions before it contacted her back about her complaint on 17 May 2024. This resulted in another surveyor being sent out to the property before the landlord provided its final response on 17 June 2024.
27. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It set timescales that it did not keep to and there was an avoidable delay at stage 2 of 68 working days where the resident chased the landlord for updates. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its complaint handling failings in its complaint responses. It therefore failed to demonstrate that it investigated its handling of the resident’s complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
28. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling process to ensure the need for additional information is identified at an early stage of complaints and residents are communicated to about any delays.

Learning

29. Landlords should follow their policies and procedures to ensure residents are treated in a consistent and fair way. In this case, the landlord did not follow its repair or complaint handling policies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Landlords should maintain appropriate records so they can satisfy themselves, their residents and external organisations like the Ombudsman that they have responded to issues in a way that is fair and reasonable. In this case, the landlord did not provide clear records to demonstrate this or that they had adequate oversight of the works to the garden.

Communication

31. In this case, communication was poor and inevitably added to the resident’s frustration and distress. The landlord should ensure it keeps residents updated around timeframes for repairs, and any delays which are likely to impact on completion times for repairs. If its complaint handling is delayed, it should make sure that it contacts residents to provide an explanation on any delays.
32. The landlord should ensure it can identify potential hazards and the urgency of a required response in line with recent legislation, although it is noted this case predates the recent legislation.