Citizen Housing Group Limited (202400481)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ongoing issues with drainage in the garden of her property. She said flooding was affecting her garden and home. She said it had not taken any action in response to her reports of ongoing problems.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of drainage issues and flooding in the garden of the property
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues and flooding in the garden of the property
   2. service failure in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of drainage issues and flooding in the garden of the property

4. The landlord was unnecessarily delayed in completing works to try and resolve drainage issues in the garden. It communicated inconsistently with the resident. It took reasonable steps to address concerns about trees affecting the drains.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord generally handled the complaint well but was unreasonably delayed in its stage 2 response. It offered no explanation or apology for this delay.

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.

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.

What we have not looked at

6. The resident raised a further complaint about drainage and flooding in the garden in October 2024 and told us that problems with drainage continued at the time of this investigation. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the events leading up to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 18 April 2024 and the actions it took in June 2024 after its response. It would not be fair to review the landlord’s actions after June 2024 because it has not had a full chance to respond and put things right.

What we have looked at

7. The landlord inspected the resident’s garden on 7 November 2023 following reports of issues with drainage at the property. It recorded that its inspector said there was no drainage in the garden itself and that existing trench drains were ineffective as they did not connect to any main drainage system.
8. The landlord’s online guidance on reporting a repair does not give a timescale for when it will respond to non-emergency reports of repair issues. It says it will get back to residents as soon as possible to book an appointment. In its Repairs and Maintenance Policy, it says it aims to deliver an efficient and effective repairs service that resolves issues on the first visit. It says it will ensure residents are aware of the status of the repair.
9. The resident said in her stage 1 complaint on 14 December 2023 that she had not been given an update on actions the landlord was taking following the inspection. It was unreasonable that it had identified a flaw in the existing drainage at the property but did not set out any sort of plan for the steps it would take. It should not have taken a formal complaint to prompt it to consider how it would resolve the problem. It could have explained what options were available, whether works were being considered, and when the resident could expect a further update. It did not keep her informed on the status of the repair as its policy says it will.
10. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 2 January 2024 that it would update the resident on the drainage issue by the end of the week. It was reasonable that it committed to taking immediate action following the complaint response. However, the resident escalated the complaint on 12 February 2024 and said nothing had been done to address the drainage problem since the stage 1 response.
11. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2024. It said it had completed a survey on 14 March 2024 for the work required for the drainage issues and asked its contractor for a quote for works to alleviate the flow of water into her garden. It said it hoped this would reduce the amount of water in her garden but may not totally prevent all run off. While this was reasonable, it came over 4 months after the initial inspection. It showed it was trying to improve the situation while acknowledging there were some limitations in what it could achieve. It was transparent with the resident which showed it was managing her expectations.
12. However, the resident emailed the landlord again on 2 April 2024 asking for updates on the drainage works as she had not heard anything. It was unreasonable that the landlord set out a plan of action but again failed to keep her informed of its progress as its policy says it will. It replied to her email on 3 April 2024 and said it had received a quote from its contractor but could not accept it due to the high cost of the work. It said it would instead install 3 new drains in the rear communal walkway to reduce water flowing into her garden. It was appropriate that it considered an alternative approach to the drainage issue quickly after it chose not to accept the quote for its initial plan of works.
13. The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 18 April 2024 that it would contact the resident to arrange a date for the completion of the works and to discuss any outstanding concerns. It was appropriate that it tried to keep her involved in the process and showed an intention to resolve the problem as urgently as possible.
14. However, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on the repair works following the complaint process. She sent emails asking for updates on 22 May and 31 May 2024, noting that works had not been organised despite being told they would happen as soon as possible. The landlord completed the installation of the drains in the rear footpath on 24 June 2024. This was 56 working days after it told her its plan for completing the work and 158 working days after its inspection of the property that identified issues with the drainage.
15. It was unreasonable that the landlord took so long to take action to try and address the drainage problem. It did not act efficiently as its policy says it will and it failed to show it was acting with urgency following its stage 2 response. The resident faced ongoing time and trouble chasing it for updates on the works. During this time, she continued to experience flooding and uncertainty about whether the issue would be resolved.
16. The landlord offered the resident £100 in its stage 2 response for failing to carry out the work on the drainage system. It was appropriate that it acknowledged its failing, but its offer did not go far enough. She faced ongoing distress and inconvenience as a result of water damaging her garden and entering areas of her home. It said it would act as soon as possible to complete works after the stage 2 response but delayed by a further 2 months. We have ordered further compensation to reflect the impact of the failing on the resident.
17. The resident also raised concerns about the maintenance of the existing drains in her stage 1 complaint on 14 December 2023. She said the landlord told her it would clear out drains regularly to ensure there was no build up of leaves but that this had not happened. She said fallen leaves from the trees in the neighbouring property were contributing to the drainage problem. She also said one of the trees was unsafe.
18. In the landlord’s Tree Management Supporting Information it says the reasonable maintenance of trees in the gardens of residents are generally the responsibility of the resident. It says the person responsible for a tree must cut back branches and safely dispose of leaves and twigs that fall from it. It says it will assess trees that are reported as unsafe and may carry out specialist tree surgery if required in these situations.
19. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 January 2024 following further discussions with her about the maintenance of the trees in the neighbouring property. It acknowledged that the trees were not its responsibility but said it would still inspect the safety of the trees and discuss the impact of the leaves with the relevant teams. It also explained the maintenance it had performed on areas within its responsibility. It was reasonable that it made its position clear based on its policy. It showed it wanted to reach a positive outcome, going beyond its policy requirements to see if it could take any further action regarding the trees.
20. The landlord raised works to remove the trees in the neighbouring property on 17 January 2024. It said it hoped this would help to remove the issue of fallen leaves blocking the drains in the communal alleyway. It said that it was doing so as a gesture of goodwill as the maintenance of the tree was not its responsibility. It was reasonable that it chose to remove the trees and showed that it took her reports seriously.
21. The landlord acknowledged it had communicated poorly with the resident in both of its complaint responses. It apologised that it had not updated her following its inspection of the property on 7 November 2023. It noted in its learning log on 18 March 2024 that it had not communicated adequately with her regarding the issue in the back garden and may have been able to prevent an escalation of the issue with more regular contact.
22. In the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy, it says it will clearly communicate with residents regarding when they can expect repairs to take place. In its Non Statutory (Discretionary) Compensation Framework, it says it will consider compensation where it has repeatedly failed to meets its service standards for communication.
23. The landlord apologised that its communication was not at an acceptable level of service and offered a total of £150 across both responses for the failing. It was appropriate that it took the opportunity to reflect on her experience and acknowledged the time and trouble she had faced. We consider the level of compensation it offered for its failings around communication to be reasonable and have considered this in line with its Compensation Framework and our own Compensation Guidance.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
25. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 9 working days (15 December 2023 to 2 January 2024) which was in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord requested an extension 18 working days after acknowledging the residents escalation (12 February 2024 to 7 March 2024) which was in line with its policy
    3. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 29 working days (7 March 2024 to 18 April 2024) which was not in line with the 20 days the Code allows
26. The landlord kept to the timelines in its policy at the beginning of the complaints handling process, providing clear responses within reasonable timeframes and formally acknowledging the resident’s complaint and escalation in good time. It can reflect positively on its complaint handling at the start of the process.
27. In the landlord’s Complaints Policy, it says it may ask for an extension to its stage 2 complaint response deadline of up to 10 days in exceptional circumstances. It says it will explain why it needs an extension. It says it may agree to an extension longer than 10 days with agreement from both parties.
28. The landlord requested an extension to its response deadline in line with its policy on 7 March 2024. There is no evidence of whether the resident agreed that this extension would be longer than 10 days. The response was given on 18 April 2024, 29 working days after the extension request. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly since the request to extend came 18 days after the escalation. It did not offer an apology or explanation for the delay which was not appropriate. It had already identified failings in its timekeeping as part of the complaint and missed the opportunity to show it was learning by acting with more urgency. The resident faced unnecessary time and trouble while waiting for its response.

Learning

29. The landlord identified failings and used the complaints process to identify areas it could feedback to its staff and improve its service. It could consider whether acting on this feedback earlier might have reduced delays in completing the drainage works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord kept clear records of the resident’s reports, actions it had taken and communication between all parties. It could reflect on whether more effective use of these records would have supported a quicker resolution to the issues reported.

Communication

31. The landlord acknowledged its failings around communication. It could consider whether it has identified why its communication was inconsistent and what steps it has taken or plans to take to improve moving forward.