Clarion Housing Association Limited (202346533)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with a garden. She lives in the property with her son who is disabled. The resident reports that he has no awareness for danger or space.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of the condition and safety of the resident’s back garden.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to reports of the condition and safety of the resident’s back garden.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of the condition and safety of the resident’s back garden.

4. The landlord’s handling of the matter lacked the coordination and timeliness expected, particularly considering the resident’s vulnerability. Despite agreeing to take discretionary action, it failed to deliver the works within a reasonable timeframe or manage expectations effectively.
5. There was also a lack of clear communication and planning, which contributed to confusion and avoidable delays. These shortcomings amounted to a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition and safety of her back garden.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and the Code, including timely acknowledgements, appropriate extensions, and issuing both stage 1 and stage 2 responses within required timescales.

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.

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

7. The resident told us that while trying to cut back some branches in her back garden, she fell and hurt her knee. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. We may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its complaint response on 18 July 2024, we will consider subsequent events to establish whether the landlord has put things right in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

The landlord’s response to reports of the condition and safety of the resident’s back garden.

9. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair policy confirm that garden maintenance is the resident’s responsibility. However, the landlord remains responsible for responding to reports of disrepair and safety concerns.
10. Its repair policy states that emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours to make safe, and non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days.
11. On 18 October 2023, the resident reported that her back garden had holes deep enough to reach above her knees. The landlord attended the same day and closed the repair, stating the issue was the resident’s responsibility. Given the terms of the tenancy agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the repair at that time.
12. On 21 December 2023, the resident’s care worker reported that large potholes in the garden posed a safety risk. The landlord attended on 3 January 2024 and again stated that the garden was not its responsibility. While it was helpful of the landlord to provide the photos of the back garden, it does not address the safety concerns detailed in the care workers reports.
13. On 13 May 2024, the resident reported that she had tripped and bruised her legs, and said the garden was collapsing. The landlord inspected the property on 30 May 2024 and noted large cracks and uneven surfaces in the concrete paths. It said it would refer the matter internally, but there is no record of the referral outcome.
14. On 24 May 2024, the landlord carried out another inspection and reported that the garden remained in the same condition, with signs of further deterioration. It is unclear whether the landlord recommended any works or continued to refer the matter back to the resident based on her responsibilities.
15. While we acknowledge that the landlord inspected the garden, it failed to evidence a thorough investigation of the resident’s safety concerns about the garden which is a failing on the landlord’s part.
16. In its stage 1 response dated 29 May 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the garden being unsafe and said it would explore ways to make it safe. It also stated that it would inspect the neighbour’s garden for comparison and provide an update. While it was positive that the landlord recognised the issue, it did not provide any update following further contact from the resident on 24 June 2024 and 1 July 2024.
17. The lack of follow-up after the resident’s attempts to engage with the landlord is a further failing on the landlord’s part.
18. The landlord raised an order on 24 June 2024 to backfill holes in the garden where the ground was forming potholes, discuss the installation of concrete gravel boards in front of the fence to prevent rot, and check for any evidence of leaks in the rear garden and patio area. While it was positive that the landlord took action, it took 26 days from its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024 to do so.
19. In its stage 2 response dated 18 July 2024, the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident on 11 July who informed it that she suspected a leak under the patio was contributing to the garden issues. The landlord said it would inspect the area during its visit on 19 July 2024 and, if necessary, arrange a CCTV survey. It also offered to infill the holes with topsoil as a goodwill gesture, considering the vulnerability of the resident’s son. This was a reasonable approach.
20. On 19 July 2024, the landlord attended but reported that the operative had not received the correct instructions. The job required additional time and support to complete, including breaking and relaying concrete and installing gravel boards. Given that the landlord had already attended on several occasions and was aware of the nature of the works required, this was inappropriate.
21. The landlord agreed to carry out works outside its formal repair responsibilities due to the resident’s vulnerability, her son’s needs, and the safety concerns she raised. This was a positive step and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to putting things right. However, the works were not completed until 10 September 2024, despite a commitment to do so on 19 July 2024.
22. The 10-week delay, especially after the resident had prepared the area, prolonged safety concerns and caused avoidable distress. The landlord’s handling of the matter could have been significantly improved.
23. The landlord said it would inspect the patio on 19 July 2024 and arrange a CCTV survey if needed. The CCTV survey was not carried out until 5 February 2025, more than 6 months later. This delay was unreasonable.
24. Given the observations above, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports concerning the condition and safety of the resident’s back garden.

25. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024).
26. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect timescales.
27. The resident told this Service that she logged a complaint with her landlord in April 2024 but did not receive a response. She provided screenshots showing her attempts, but these were not sufficient to confirm that the complaint had been successfully submitted. Therefore, we cannot make a determination in relation to this issue.
28. However, following a request from us for the landlord to provide a stage 1 response within 5 working days, by 24 May 2024. The landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 20 May 2024, the next working day, in line with its timescales set out in its complaint policy and the Code.
29. During that conversation, the landlord requested to extend the stage 1 response deadline from 24 May 2024 to 29 May 2024, 2 working days later, and the resident agreed to the new deadline. This was in accordance with the code.
30. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024 as agreed with the resident and in line with the Code which says any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason.
31. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction to her landlord on 24 June 2024 and the landlord appropriately escalated her complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days on 1 July 2024, in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
32. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 July 2024, 13 working days after the acknowledgement and therefore, in line with its policy and the Code.
33. The landlord acted in accordance with its published complaints policy and the Code throughout the process. It acknowledged and responded to the complaint within the required timescales, appropriately requested and agreed an extension with the resident, and escalated the complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. The landlord’s actions were timely and compliant with the Code, and therefore, we are satisfied that it handled the complaint appropriately.
34. Given the observations above, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.