Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202347495)

Decision
Case ID	202347495
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Plymouth Community Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 April 2026

Background

The resident lives with her young son. She was unhappy about the condition of the garden. She is autistic and has dyslexia.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the garden.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the garden in line with its policies and her tenancy agreement.
The landlord delayed responding to her complaint for 5 months.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific, meaningful and empathetic to the delay in responding to her complaint between June and October 2023. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 22 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord must provide document evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific, meaningful and empathetic to the delay in responding to her complaint between June and October 2023.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

22 May 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord must provide document evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

22 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 January 2023	The resident complained because she’d been told the previous tenant had buried their pets in the garden. She asked the landlord to remove a black weed cover and install a new fence.
20 January 2023	The landlord sent a stage 1 response. It agreed to inspect her home on 8 February 2023.
June to October 2023	The resident asked to escalate her complaint 5 times.
9 November 2023	The landlord sent a stage 1 response. It agreed to risk assess the reports of dead pets buried in the garden. It said a new fence or removal of the black weed cover were not necessary works.
11 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said her son had eaten the black weed membrane and been ill as a result. She was concerned by the reports of dead pets buried in the garden.
6 December 2023	The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It upheld its stage 1 response. It said it had not found any hazards in the garden.
February 2024	The landlord tested the soil in the garden.
March 2024	The landlord reviewed the complaint at stage 3. It said the garden was in a reasonable state. There were no health and safety risks and there were no further works required.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to remove the weed cover and install a fence and she was worried about the reports of dead pets buried in the garden.

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.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about the garden
Finding	No maladministration

The tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible for maintaining the garden. The landlord assessed the black weed membrane did not pose any risk, and the resident could remove it herself if she wished. This was a reasonable approach in line with its lettings policy and the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said it had not received any reports of ASB related to the lack of a front garden fence. It explained many other properties also had an open front garden style. It gave permission for the resident to install a front garden fence if she wanted to. This was a reasonable approach in line with the tenancy agreement and its ASB and repairs policies.
The landlord considered the resident’s concerns about dead pets potentially buried in her garden. It did not find any evidence of hazards as a result. The landlord took reasonable actions in line with its policies and sought to reassure the resident further by testing the soil. This did not find any hazards in the soil.
Throughout the case the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and responded empathetically to her concerns.
We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. At the time, the landlord operated a 3-stage process. Its complaints policy is now in line with the Code. Our findings are that the landlord:
1. Responded to the January 2023 complaint within its policy timeframe.
2. Received at least 3 requests to escalate the complaint between June and August 2023. It acknowledged these but did not escalate or raise a new complaint.
3. Raised a new stage 1 complaint in October 2023. It did not acknowledge the delay in responding to the new complaint between June and November 2023.
4. Acknowledged and responded to the November 2023 stage 2 complaint within its policy timeframe. It provided details of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
5. Raised and responded to the stage 3 complaint in line with its policy.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The 5-month delay in raising a new complaint likely caused the resident time and trouble because she had to chase the landlord. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord kept good records. Evidence shows the landlord considered best practice in this complaint and how the resident and others may be impacted by the issues raised.

Communication

The landlord used its policies and the tenancy agreement to clearly and consistently explain to the resident why it would not do further garden works.