Home Group Limited (202524307)

Background

1. There is a nature reserve behind the resident’s property for which the landlord and local authority have joint responsibility. The landlord’s responsible for maintaining the area immediately adjacent to the boundary with the resident’s property. She asked it to cut back the area because it was growing into her garden and damaging her shed. She has medical diagnoses which impact on her mobility.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about overgrowth impacting on her garden and shed.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about overgrowth impacting on her garden and shed.

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

Reasons

4. The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy says it’s committed to ensuring neighbourhoods are well maintained.
5. On 17 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the overgrowth needed to be cut back. She said that she could not do it herself due to her health issues. She asked it to repair the shed roof which had also been damaged. An internal email dated 20 May 2024 confirmed it was arranging works to clear the area. It also set out its intention to ask its surveyor to inspect the shed once works were carried out. On 10 July 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to chase an update regarding the clearance and the inspection of her shed. The delay of 14 months was unreasonable, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it provided updates during this time which caused distress.
6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 August 2025 acknowledged that the resident had been reporting the overgrowth since 2020. However, confusion about who owned the land delayed works taking place. It said its response did not meet its usual service standards. It set out its action plan to clear and maintain the land. Considering the length of time the resident had been reporting the issue, and her limited mobility, the delays were unreasonable. For the same reasons, its position that the shed and overgrowth were her responsibility was also inappropriate.
7. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord appropriately identified its failure to maintain the land and offered £175 compensation. This was in line with our compensation guidance where the landlord’s failure had an adverse effect on the resident.
8. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation did not restore the resident to the position she would have been in were it not for its failure. This is because it did not resolve the issue with the overgrowth and damaged shed. We note that it arranged for the shed to be removed at the resident’s request during March 2026. While this was positive, it was 7 months after its final complaint response. The delay limited the extent to which we can consider its actions as part of its complaint resolution. Furthermore, the photographs it provided as evidence regarding the shed also show that the overgrowth has not been addressed.

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.