Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202342841)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy started in February 2023. In June 2023 she contacted the landlord to report her concerns about the condition of the rear garden.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her rear garden.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her rear garden.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Condition of the rear garden

4. The landlord did not inspect the resident’s garden to satisfy itself as to the extent of the issue and the impact on the resident.

Handling of associated complaint

5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s additional complaint about the condition of her garden. When she made a further complaint, the landlord responded at stage 2 without having first responded at stage 1.

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.

6. On 5 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the condition of the rear garden. She said the previous resident had buried waste in the garden, making the ground uneven. The landlord and resident subsequently exchanged emails during June 2023. The landlord asked the resident to contact a member of its voids team.
7. During her call with us on 11 March 2026, the resident said the waste only became noticeable once she started cutting the grass in the warmer months. Therefore, it’s reasonable that the landlord might also have been unaware of the issue until this time. She also said that during June 2023 she received a call from the landlord which offered to collect the waste. She said it did not provide enough notice, so she did not take up the offer. While we do not doubt the resident’s account, there’s no independent evidence to corroborate events.
8. In a letter to the landlord dated 8 December 2023, the resident said the garden was a health hazard. This was because she’d found bricks and other waste buried under it. She asked for the garden to be cleared of any dangerous objects and new turf laid. An internal email, dated 15 August 2023, confirmed residents were responsible for maintaining gardens and that they took gardens “as seen”. It also suggested the resident be referred to her tenancy agreement.
9. The landlord did not respond to our email of 9 March 2026, which requested a copy of the void standard and evidence to support its position that gardens were taken as seen. We acknowledge that residents are expected to maintain their gardens in line with their tenancy agreements. However, they should be in an acceptable condition to enable them to do so.
10. On 11 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ask it to reconsider its position. An internal email dated 24 January 2024 confirmed that works were carried out to its void standard, including removal of surface debris. It said that if the problem occurred after the resident moved in, it was not a void issue.
11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 January 2024 to confirm there was no record of her having raised issues with the garden before June 2023. It relayed the information about the void works and said it did not uphold the complaint.
12. Whether or not the issue had been raised previously, and whether or not it was a void issue, the landlord should have inspected the garden. This would’ve provided an opportunity to satisfy itself there was no health and safety risk. It could also have fully considered the impact on the resident in its response. That it did not do so demonstrated a lack of an open-minded approach to resolving the issue.
13. The landlord’s failure to inspect the garden amounts to maladministration because it had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings in such circumstances. In ordering £250 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to inspect the garden.

14. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint was in line with our non-statutory Code in respect of timescales. It said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt.
15. Our applicable Code says that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. The resident raised issues with the garden on 5 June 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 November 2023. Therefore, it should have addressed the issue in its stage 1 response.
16. Given that it failed to do so, the resident was caused time and trouble when she raised the issue again in her email to the landlord of 8 December 2023. On this occasion the landlord included the matter in its complaint definition for her stage 2 complaint. This was inappropriate, because it meant the resident did not benefit from a 2-stage complaint process in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
17. In its email to us dated 8 August 2024, the landlord acknowledged that it should have raised a fresh stage 1 complaint. While this was positive, it failed to recognise that it missed the opportunity to address the matter in its original stage 1 response.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued within the timescales set out in the Code and its complaints policy. However, its response was inaccurate because it did not reflect the resident’s complaint. This was because it referred to cutting the grass and did not address the issue of waste.
19. The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings in such circumstances. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Learning

20. The landlord appropriately identified learning from its complaint handling. However, it failed to set out what steps it would take to improve its service. We recommend such updates are provided as part of the complaint resolution process.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord did not respond to our information request of 9 March 2026.

Communication

22. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident.