Clarion Housing Association Limited (202109782)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109782

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 May 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in her house since 2002 when she moved in on an assured weekly tenancy.
  2. In July 2021 the resident complained that she has been reporting problems over the years about garden maintenance being inadequate and frequently missed.
  3. In response, the landlord set out the schedule (in terms of the frequency) of its grass cutting and hedge cutting programme and the limits of the work it would carry out. It explained that more recently the maintenance team had been unable to access the garden from the rear as it used to. This was due to the adjacent shop owner having installed a security gate at the entrance to the rear alley. The contractor was making efforts to meet its contractual obligations, although this could be affected by the weather and access issues. It could also be affected by staff shortages due to the Covid pandemic. The landlord concluded by offering the resident £150 compensation.
  4. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Her outstanding issues are:

a)     That the garden maintenance is irregular and she is concerned about how the landlord records and monitors it.

b)     That the landlord should carry out a more frequent and extensive service.

c)     That the contractors should gain access via the neighbouring shop.

d)     That the landlord should reimburse her for garden maintenance that she has paid for herself.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence shows that the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of garden maintenance every summer since 2011. She would like a more frequent service to keep the grass short. At the time of making her complaint in 2021, following missed visits, the resident said that the grass and weeds were waist high.
  2. The planned schedule is that the grass should be cut every two weeks between April and October. However, this is subject to access, the weather and staff shortages. For example, in July 2021 the landlord told the resident that the contractors were running two to three weeks behind.
  3. The main problem more recently has been lack of access to the back garden. The contractors used to be able to access through the rear. However, the installation of a new security gate by the shop owner means that the contractors can only access the garden by going through the resident’s house. Consequently, they cannot gain access if the resident is not in or does not answer the door.
  4. The landlord says it has spoken to the shop owner who has declined to give the contractors a key and who will not leave the shop unattended to provide access to the team on arrival. The landlord told the resident that if she could get a key from the shop to give to the team, then they would be able to gain access. Despite being told this, the resident has maintained that the team should not have any difficulty gaining access from the gate. However, she has not provided any evidence of this being the case. Following the stage 1 response she told the landlord that she was going to ask the shop owner to provide a letter to this service about the lies that the landlord had told. However, no such letter has been received.
  5. The schedule for hedge cutting is that they are cut three times a year (in April, July and October) and kept to a height of no more than seven feet. The contractor cuts the hedge in the resident’s front garden, for which there are no access issues. However, the resident has complained that, due to missed visits, the hedge was so bushy that it obstructed her use of the path. The Ombudsman does not know if this is still an issue but clearly the contractors should be ensuring that the hedge is sufficiently trimmed as to allow the resident to safely use the adjacent path.
  6. The landlord has refused to cut the hedge in the resident’s back garden due to health and safety issues. There is a shed and a pond directly in front of the hedge that would need to be reached over in order to cut the hedge. The landlord has told the resident about this on more than one occasion. It has said that if she arranged for the shed to be moved to another area of the garden, then it would cut the hedge. This service has not seen a response from the resident in relation to the landlord’s stance and presumes that she does not agree that she should have to relocate the shed.
  7. The schedule that the landlord has agreed with the contractor should be enough to keep the grass and hedging under control. The landlord has a duty to spend its money wisely and the Ombudsman encourages social landlords to make the most effective use of their limited resources. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot agree that the landlord should deliver a more frequent and extensive service. The landlord’s stance in terms of refusing to cut the hedge in the back garden for health and safety reasons is also reasonable.
  8. The issue is that maintenance is not always carried out as planned. The weather is outside the landlord’s control, as are staff shortages caused by sickness and staff self-isolating, which then causes a backlog. The biggest issue recently has been lack of access to the back garden. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has tried to resolve the problem of access via the rear security gate. If access via the front of the house is not possible then the grass cutting cannot be completed and it is reasonable that the contractors move on to the next job.
  9. In terms of the landlord’s monitoring of the contractor, the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord seeking information from the contractor about dates of past and future visits. However, the resident should continue to report any extended periods when the work has not been done so that the landlord is made aware of any problems.
  10. The resident also has a responsibility to manage her own expectations about the rescheduling of appointments. The contractors used to leave a card through the resident’s door if they were unable to gain access. The resident would often then call to say she had returned home or that she had not heard them and would expect the contractors to return soon afterwards. However, that was not always logistically possible if they had already left the area. In response to the complaint the landlord has said that it will start leaving a card again to show that the contractors have attended.
  11. The resident does not pay for the maintenance of her garden. She receives the service as a legacy concessionary service. Strictly speaking, she is not entitled to this concessionary service as she does not have a protected assured tenancy. However, the landlord has continued to provide the service and says that it will carry on doing so where access is possible. This demonstrates the landlord exercising reasonable discretion to ensure that the resident continues to benefit from a service she has historically received.
  12. The resident has asked to be reimbursed for gardening that she has paid for herself. However, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord is providing an appropriate level of service, which is reasonably affected on occasion by events outside of its control, such as access. Therefore, it is a matter for the resident whether she wishes to engage additional private gardeners at her own expense. The landlord is not responsible for any other costs incurred.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may wish to consider how it could provide the resident with advance notice of appointments so that she can be home to let the contractors in. It would be sensible to do this at as short notice as possible so that plans do not then change due to adverse weather.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 it offered in response to the complaint.