Derby Homes Limited (202119453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119453

Derby Homes Limited

31 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her requests to undertake works to the garden of the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which commenced on 28 September 2020.
  2. The resident submits that when she took over the tenancy for the property in September 2020 the landlord told her that the garden “would be done” and the hedges would be “cut back”. On 18 May 2021 she submitted a written complaint to the landlord about the condition of the garden. In this complaint she stated that she had raised the issue with her housing officer in March and April. On 26 May 2021 the landlord conducted a video call with the resident. On 28 May 2021 the landlord provided its stage one complaint in response. The landlord advised the resident that it had arranged for the hedge and grass to be cut and rubble to be removed, however its position was that the concrete slab in the garden is a “retaining slab” and therefore cannot be moved. On 28 June 2021 the landlord cut the hedges and grass.
  3. The resident made another written complaint on 5 August 2021 that there were still problems with the garden including rubble. A representative from the landlord attended the property on 13 August 2021.  The landlord agreed to the removal of a concrete slab and clearance of some areas of the garden that were “particularly dense with stone”. This work was done on 19 July 2021 and subsequently checked by a supervisor.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 3 September 2021. The landlord stated that it had “cut back all the garden” and “arranged for some rubble to be collected”. It advised that it was satisfied with the outcome of its works and concluded that the condition of the garden was now “maintainable and manageable” by the resident.
  5. The resident’s position is that the garden remains in an unsatisfactory condition. He submits that he is not able to maintain the garden in a satisfactory condition due to the condition of it – including rubble and concrete slabs which are a safety hazard and mean the garden cannot be properly maintained.
  6. The landlord’s position is that it has carried out “substantial” work on the garden. It accepts that work was needed when the resident moved in. However, its position is that the garden is now in an appropriate condition and the landlord does not carry out what it considers to be “landscaping” works.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were issues with the garden when the resident moved in that required remedial action. The crux of the issue in dispute is whether the landlord has undertaken sufficient remedial works to the garden.
  2. The Ombudsman considers that this dispute raises two issues. Firstly, whether the landlord has fulfilled its obligations with respect to the safety of the garden and secondly whether the landlord has taken adequate steps to ensure that the garden can be used and maintained as a functional outdoor space.
  3. In considering these issues the Ombudsman has taken into account the following relevant legislation and policy. Clause 3.21 of the Tenancy Agreement states that the resident “must keep your yard and/or garden area to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. You are responsible for the upkeep of all parts of your garden, this includes but is not limited to grass, trees, plants, bushes, hedges, garage or outbuilding.” The landlord’s webpage section on Garden Maintenance states that it is the resident’s responsibility to repair “patios, garden steps or other garden features….and [maintain] general garden paths although [the landlord] maintains the paths giving access to front and back doors”.
  4. The Defective Premises Act 1972 requires that a property be safe for occupation and sets out a general duty to carry out work properly. The Housing Act 2004 requires all housing to be free from any risk of harm to health or safety which arises from a deficiency in land in the vicinity, as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise.
  5. The Ombudsman has also referred to the landlord’s “Lettable Standard” policy which sets out the standards that properties should meet at the beginning of a new tenancy, and which relevantly states that “Gardens/yards will be cleared and safe for use…Gardens should be cleared of any accumulated rubbish and debris…hardstandings are to be left in a safe condition”.

Safety of the garden

  1. The resident’s position is that the garden is not in a condition that is maintainable due to the amount of rubble and various pieces of rubbish that have become embedded in the soil by previous tenants.
  2. The landlord agreed to remove the concrete slab after a visit to the property on 13 August and this was confirmed in the stage two response. It was initially thought the concrete slab was retaining the driveway and could not be removed; however, it was later found that this was not the case. The concrete slab was removed along with dense pieces of stone in some areas of the garden.
  3. The Ombudsman therefore considers it reasonable to determine that there are no longer any safety issues for the landlord to consider as this has been dealt with by the removal of the concrete slab and other dense stones.

Adequacy of garden condition

  1. A separate and the dominant issue to safety concerns is whether the landlord has failed to provide the garden in an adequate state for the resident to be able to use and maintain it.
  2. The landlord does not dispute that there were issues with the garden being overgrown, which it has remedied. The crux of the issue remaining in dispute is about the rubble and debris in the soil. The resident submits that this means that she cannot maintain the garden. A particular issue appears to be that she considers that turf cannot be laid because of the state of the ground.
  3. The landlord states that it has done adequate works and the garden is now in a state that the resident can maintain it. It advises that it does not carry out what it considers to be “landscaping” works. The landlord has suggested that if the resident considers that turf cannot be laid then decking or a patio could be installed.
  4. The Ombudsman is satisfied that while the landlord initially failed to take steps to cut back hedges, move the lawn and clear overgrowth, it subsequently did so. The dispute now centres on rubbish and debris that is within the ground itself.
  5. Separately to the landlord’s obligation to consider safety issues which has been adequately dealt with, the landlord’s obligation is that the garden be “cleared” and presented in a reasonable condition. The landlord does not have an obligation to undertake aesthetic landscaping although the resident’s request for this is entirely understandable.
  6. In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has done so. The landlord has undertaken works to cut back overgrown vegetation and removed “surface” rubble and debris. It would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to undertake significant groundworks to remove and replace the soil. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has undertaken sufficient works on the garden that it is in a state that the resident can have reasonable enjoyment of it. There are reasonable gardening solutions available to the resident to address the issue of poor soil and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the garden can be used and maintained as a functional outdoor space.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to undertake works to the garden of the property.

Reasons

  1. The evidence confirms that the landlord dealt with the issues raised by the resident in relation to the concrete slab and the rubble and this was adequately dealt with by being removed during the course of the complaint.
  1. The landlord’s obligation is that the garden be “cleared” and presented in a reasonable condition. The landlord does not have an obligation to undertake aesthetic landscaping. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has done so and the garden can be used and maintained as a functional outdoor space.