Ongo Homes Limited (202408120)

Background

1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s response to her request for a garden clearance and a fence to be installed between her and her neighbour’s property. The neighbour is a private resident and not a tenant of the landlord. The resident is vulnerable because of her mental health and has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), the landlord is aware of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for fences to be installed and a garden clearance.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for fences to be installed and a garden clearance.
5. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we have found that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to provide redress to the resident in response to her complaint. This included an apology, a reflection of what went wrong, and an offer of compensation which was in line with what we would look to award in the circumstances.

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. We can see that the resident’s social worker asked the landlord to support the resident with the fencing and garden clearance in November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on this or took steps to explain what support, if any, it could offer. This meant that the resident’s expectations were not managed which caused distress. This ultimately let to the resident making her complaint.
8. When the resident asserted that the landlord’s staff member had promised works, the landlord did not investigate what had been said or ask the resident for evidence. We recognise that the staff member in question was unavailable so it was not possible for the landlord to ask them, but the resident had kept copies of her communication with the staff member which the landlord could have used to investigate further. The landlord did not take an inquisitorial approach which led to the resident feeling dismissed.
9. On several occasions, the resident outlined the impact the garden and the fence was having on her mental health and said that she was vulnerable. The landlord did not take sufficient steps to provide support or give advice to the resident which was inappropriate. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of vulnerable residents when managing this work.
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord outlined that it did not offer fencing or garden clearance because this was the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not demonstrate that it understood the resident’s assertions or provide reassurances that it had investigated her complaint.
11. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by visiting the resident to review her communication with the staff member. While it should have taken this step following the stage 1 complaint, it was positive that the landlord showed it was taking the matter seriously in an attempt to put things right.
12. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately by offering fencing and to explore if it could install a fence at the front of the property. It acknowledged the impact its communication had on the resident and her mental health, and offered further support. The landlord demonstrated it was taking the matter seriously by providing its follow up response and an update on the fence. It also explained that it was unable to verify any other claims the resident had made, including the garden clearance, because there was no evidence available.
13. The landlord has offered the resident compensation of £1,100. This was made up of £400 for its delay in carrying out work and £700 for the distress caused to the resident. We note that the landlord offered additional compensation to the resident at a later stage, but this was for matters not part of this investigation.
14. To assess if a landlord’s response was proportionate to the failings identified, we consider the facts of the complaint at hand only rather than comparing them to others. This is because we consider remedies on a case-by-case basis.
15. Having consideration for our remedies guidance, the length of delay, and the resident’s circumstances, we find that the landlord’s apology, reflection, compensation offer, and commitment to complete works were appropriate to address the issues the resident raised. The offer of compensation is also in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.
16. The resident has explained that she does not consider that the fence works or garden clearances have been fully completed. The landlord should offer to visit the resident to assess the fence and outline its position on any further works required.

17. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in line with the timeframes set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaints policy has the same timeframes as the Code. We can see that the landlord did offer the resident compensation for a delayed response, but it is not clear what delay this was in relation to.
18. The landlord provided a second stage 2 complaint response to the resident which included some updated information. While providing a further complaint response is not in keeping with the Code, the landlord acted in good faith by providing an update and there was no detriment to the resident.
19. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate in this case.

Communication

21. The landlord could have prevented the matter from escalating if it had taken steps to discuss the matter with the resident and review her evidence at the earliest possible opportunity. This may have gone some way to maintain the landlord and tenant relationship.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord should make sure that its complaints process includes 2 stages only, additional responses are not in keeping with the Code.