Oxford City Council (202517957)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant since 2001. The complaint is about drainage issues centred around a path in the front garden. This was changed from cement to block paving between 2012 and May 2022. The exact date of the change is unknown because the landlord and resident dispute who installed the paving.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about drainage issues.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about drainage issues.
4. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has acknowledged its failure to take prompt action, poor communication, and the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns. It has apologised and offered sufficient redress for its failures.
6. There were avoidable delays and a lack of updates in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, it has acknowledged its failures, offered proportionate redress, and taken steps to improve its service and prevent a repeat of those failures.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

7. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to gutters, drains, and outside pipes. It allows the resident to carry out improvements or changes to the property after getting its written permission. The agreement says the resident is responsible for repairs to those changes unless it agreed in writing to accept that responsibility. Where changes are made without permission, it may ask the resident to put the property back to its original condition, cover the cost of any work it must do, and rectify any damage that may have been caused. If necessary, it will instruct repairs to ensure safety regulations are met and charge the cost to the resident.
8. The landlord has fully accepted its service failures in its complaint responses. It has sincerely apologised, offered £200 compensation, and offered to investigate further if more information was provided. This was a reasonable response to the identified failures. The landlord’s actions show it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and rectified the identified failings.
9. The resident said she received a letter in 2019 about planned property improvements. She cannot recall who sent the letter, but thinks it was from the highways department. She says she was asked to email her consent, after which the block paving was installed. However, she said, within a couple of years, drainage issues with a downpipe in the front garden began, with water coming up through the paving “like fountains”. She believes this was directly related to the paving that was installed. The resident has not provided us evidence of the letters or emails regarding the paving works.
10. The landlord’s repair records show it installed a concrete path in the resident’s garden in February 2011; there are no records of any work to install block paving. These records also show the resident first reported an issue with water bubbling up through the block paving by the drain on 17 July 2023. It initially responded to reports by carrying out repairs and when those failed it investigated further to find the underlying cause. At this point, it realised it had no records of installing the paving in the property. So, its actions and response at this stage were reasonable.
11. We have seen evidence of the landlord making enquiries both internally and externally to find out who did the work and why. It also contacted highways, whom the resident had said she thought did the work. However, none of these teams had carried out or commissioned the work. When work like this is undertaken, there are records such as work orders, quotations, procurement/financial trails, planning and sign off. It was unable to find any records itself or held by contractors. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to conclude that it did not install the block paving and was not responsible for any work resulting from issues with it.
12. Having considered the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we consider the landlord’s offer of £200 proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her concerns. We recommend it pays the £200 offered for its failures if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid. The landlord has identified the block paving as the likely cause. We recommend that it investigates the matter further to make a conclusive finding of the underlying cause and inform the resident of its position on future maintenance and responsibility.

13. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.
14. The landlord acknowledged the complaint after 18 working days at stage 1 and its response was issued 10 working days later. At stage 2 it acknowledged the escalation the next working day, but its response was issued 97 working days later. It updated the resident in July 2025 with the reasons for the delay in its response but did not provide a revised timeframe. It then gave her no further updates or explanations until we asked it to issue its stage 2 response. At both stages, its handling of the complaint was not in line with its policy or the Code.
15. However, the landlord has fully accepted its failures at both stages within its responses and offered £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This figure is consistent with our remedies guidance. Therefore, we find reasonable redress and recommend the landlord to pay the £300 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision.

Communication

17. The landlord’s overall communication was below expected standards. It is reminded of the importance of making proactive and prompt contact with residents to update them and/or explains delays, however small. Not only is this good customer service, but it also prevents added trouble and inconvenience being caused.
18. The landlord should do its best to build and maintain a positive relationship with its residents. This cannot be achieved where the resident cannot trust the landlord to complete prompt repairs, fulfil promises, communicate effectively and quickly, and provide a robust and effective complaints process.