Home Group Limited (202213850)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213850

Home Group Limited

22 January 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of trees and shrubs overhanging into his garden.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports that common areas including an access footpath were not being maintained.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has resided in a 3-bed house owned by the landlord since November 2005. He lives in the property with his partner and children.
The property is within a scheme of similar properties and has areas of common planting and hard standing. There is an access footbath that runs alongside the resident’s property and then turns and runs along the end of the resident’s garden and the gardens of several other houses on the street.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has disclosed that he has limited mobility due to physical health conditions.
The resident has stated to both the landlord and this Service that before moving into the property he was told that several trees and shrubs overhanging the boundary fence to the property would be cut back by the landlord. He also stated that there was initially some confusion about what areas were communal and which belonged to the property due to a boundary fencing being missing. The fence was reinstalled before the resident moved in.
The resident has provided photographs which show his garden and the surrounding communal areas. The photographs show that the areas of issue consist of hedgerow to one side and a large number of tall trees which appear to be several metres higher than the 6-foot-tall boundary fence in several areas. They also show that the communal pathway was overgrown to both sides and the path itself with ivy, moss, weeds and seedlings.
The photographs provided of the resident’s garden show several tree seedlings growing within the grassed and planted areas of the garden. The resident states these have self-seeded from the trees and shrubs surrounding the property. The resident has stated that his daughter is extremely allergic to catkins dropped by one of the neighbouring trees and experiences blisters on her skin if she touches them. He has also stated that the garden gets no light because of the trees.
Between May 2019 and April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report trees and shrubs overhanging into his garden. He also reported that a footpath running behind his property and common planted area to the side of his property were not being maintained by the landlord.
The landlord logged a formal complaint in April 2022 regarding its response to his reports of issues with the trees and grounds maintenance.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for maintaining his own garden. The landlord’s website states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining footpaths and “trees in communal areas not adopted by a local authority”. It states that residents are responsible for maintaining trees and shrubs within their own gardens.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy states that the landlord will be “clear what responsibilities are ours, those of customers and those that belong to other parties and we communicate this consistently”.
The policy also states that all schemes will be inspected regularly and that residents should be invited to attend these inspections. It also states that the landlord will consult with residents about the services provided on their schemes.
The grounds maintenance specifications for the estate on which the resident’s property is located state that the contractor will visit every 2 to 3 weeks (a total of 18 times per year). The specification includes the maintenance of shrubs, hedges and trees in communal areas.
The landlord’s website states it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy which has been provided does not provide its response timescales. The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code states that a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within five days.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that he has been complaining to the landlord about trees and shrubs overhanging his garden and the maintenance of communal areas including the footpath since he moved into the property in 2015.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This Service would therefore usually consider events that took place up to 6 months prior to a formal complaint being raised.
In this case while the landlord did not log a formal complaint until April 2022, evidence seen by this Service confirms that the resident explicitly asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint about the issues in June 2019, July 2019 and November 2020. We have therefore considered the events that took place from January 2019 until the end of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure in July 2022.

Summary of events prior to the complaint period

The resident has advised this Service that he first raised issues with trees and shrubs overhanging his garden and grounds maintenance issues when he moved into the property in 2015. He has stated that he continued to raise the issues with the landlord regularly from this time.
The resident has stated that issues regarding the responsibility for the trees beyond the fence at the rear of the property were first raised in 2017. He advised that the landlord told him at this time that the land belonged to the local authority and therefore it was not the landlord’s responsibility to maintain it.
This Service has not seen evidence that confirms the landlord’s actions before 2019 as described by the resident. We have however seen evidence within the landlord’s records that confirms that the issue was raised by the resident in May 2019.

Summary of events during the complaint period

The landlord’s records show that the resident’s partner telephoned the landlord on 23 May 2019 to report ongoing issues with trees overhanging the back garden. She said that she had been reporting the issue since she moved into the property and was being passed back and forth between the landlord and local authority who both said the land and trees belonged to the other. The resident’s partner said that the common ground at the side of the property was not being maintained by the landlord and had become overgrown with nettles and weeds.
The resident’s partner telephoned the landlord again on 10 June 2019 chasing up a response to her previous telephone call.
On 21 June 2019 the resident’s partner again telephoned the landlord asking for a response regarding overgrown trees and common garden maintenance. The landlord’s records show that on 24 June 2019 it visited the area described by the resident and took photographs. This Service has not seen these photographs.
Internal landlord emails dated 24 June 2019 stated that the communal access footpath which ran down the side of the resident’s property and then along the back of the resident’s and other gardens was “very overgrown”. The emails stated that the footpath was for “access for emergency services” and that the weeds were growing into residents’ gardens making their own garden maintenance more difficult. The landlord asked its contractor to confirm whether the footpath was part of the contract for communal grounds maintenance and if not if it could provide a quote to clear the area. The contractor replied that it would clear the footpath on its next visit. No evidence has been seen that this was completed.
The landlord’s records show that on 2 July 2019 the resident asked the landlord to “log a complaint” regarding the length of time taken to address issues with trees at the rear of the garden. The resident had stated that a housing officer had taken photographs and said they would contact the garden maintenance contractor but he had received no updates.
On 6 October 2020 the resident’s partner telephoned the landlord and said that she was continuing to experience issues with overhanging trees and that the footpath was overgrown making it difficult for her and others on the street to put their bins out. She stated that she had complained about the issue every year since moving into the property. On 14 October 2020 the resident sent photographs of the overgrown footpath to the landlord. The photographs show shrubs and weeds overgrowing the footpath leaving a very narrow amount of walkway.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2020 and asked again for a formal complaint to be logged regarding grounds maintenance. He said that he would contact the Ombudsman if the landlord continued not to provide the services it was charging residents for. The landlord attempted to contact the resident the following day and its records state that it left a voicemail “regarding [the] complaint”.
Email communications between the landlord and its contractor on 19 November 2020 show that the contractor provided a quote for a one-off clearance of the communal footpath and a further quote for regular maintenance of this area to be added to the grounds maintenance contract for the scheme.
The landlord’s records show that on 26 November 2020 its contractor cut back the bushes and weeds overgrowing the communal footpath.
On 13 April 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and said that for the past 5 years he had been raising the issue of overhanging trees at the end of his garden. He said that he had been advised by the local authority that the 4.5-metre-long piece of land beyond his fence belonged to the landlord. He said that his children could not play out in the garden due to seeds coming from the trees.
The landlord contacted the local authority on 16 April 2021 with plans which it stated showed that the trees and bushes beyond the resident’s fence were owned by the local authority. The landlord telephoned the resident on the same day and stated that the bushes were the local authority’s responsibility.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 27 May 2021 and said that the local authority had told him that the land and trees belonging to the landlord and were therefore the landlord’s responsibility to maintain.
On 17 June 2021 the resident again telephoned the landlord and asked to be contacted regarding the trees at the rear of his garden. He telephoned the landlord again on 28 June 2021 as he had not received a response.
On 28 June 2021 the landlord returned the resident’s call and advised that it was still awaiting further information as there were “discrepancies” in the boundary line on various plans. The landlord said it would keep the resident updated.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 30 November 2021 again asking for an update regarding the trees.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said that it had contacted the local authority regarding ownership of the trees and had heard back “inconclusively”. The local authority had agreed to cut some taller willow trees to ground level but the remaining hawthorn and laurel trees would not be removed.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 20 January 2022 and said that it had received further plans which appeared to show the trunks of the trees in question were “right on a boundary line”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 February 2022 and said that he had not received an update regarding the grounds maintenance. He said that the local authority had removed the trees to the south and that he was anxious for the issue of the trees on the east boundary to be resolved.
The landlord replied to the resident on 10 February 2022 and stated that it remained its position that the trees were not on the landlord’s land but that it understood that this was disputed by the local authority.
Internal landlord emails dated 11 February 2022 show that the landlord had 3 different plans for the estate and that each showed different boundaries. It stated that the legal plan showed that the boundary of the landlord’s land ended at the fence at the rear of the resident’s garden with the trees past this fence outside the landlord’s boundary. The other 2 plans showed the trees within the landlord’s boundary. The emails stated that the landlord had visited the area and found 2 trees to the rear of the resident’s property which dropped seeds into the resident’s garden which were then growing into saplings in his garden. It also stated that it had found the access footpath to the side of the resident’s property was not being maintained by the landlord’s contractor as it was not within the grounds maintenance plan.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident and stated that it was still waiting for information regarding the ownership of the land and trees on it.
Internal landlord emails of 28 February 2022 show that the landlord had received quotes to fell the trees and remove some shrubs at the rear of the property and clear the overgrown access footpath.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 22 March 2022 and asked for an update regarding the trees.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 28 March 2022 and said that an order had been raised in February 2022 with the garden maintenance contractor for the trees to be cut. The landlord said that due to recent storm damage in the area there were delays to all landscaping works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2022 and said that the issue had been ongoing for 6 years and he had previously asked for an official complaint to be raised but received no formal response. On 11 April 2022 the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint. He stated that he was unhappy with the amount of time he had waited to have the trees removed which were overhanging the garden.
The landlord raised a formal complaint on 25 April 2022 and wrote to the resident on 26 April 2022 to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.
The landlord’s contractor carried out works to cut back the shrubs and trees at the rear of the property on 27 April 2022. The resident telephoned the landlord on 28 April 2022 and said he was unhappy with the standard of work carried out as bushes were still coming over the fencing and were not tidy.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s formal complaint on 10 May 2022. It stated:
1. The resident had initially reported issues with the tree and hedge in his garden to the landlord in April 2021. He asked the landlord to remove the tree and prune the hedges.
2. On 14 April 2021 the landlord asked the local council to confirm who owned the land. There were delays caused by boundary line reviews.
3. In February 2022 it was agreed that the land was owned by the landlord and it was responsible for its maintenance.
4. On 28 March 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays and confirmed that it had raised an order for its contractor to complete maintenance works. The contractor was delayed due to a backlog of work due to severe storm damage in the area.
5. On 11 April 2022 the resident said he was unhappy to wait any longer for the works to be completed and raised a formal complaint.
6. On 28 April 2022 the landlord confirmed that the trees had been maintained and the resident was happy with this. The resident was not however happy with the appearance of the hedge.
7. The resident also asked the landlord to carry out more regular maintenance to the hedges.
8. Increasing the frequency of hedge maintenance would increase the service charges to all residents on the estate. Therefore the landlord needed to notify and consult with all residents before agreeing to increasing the service.
9. The resident had advised the landlord that he remained unhappy so the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. The landlord would contact the resident within 8 weeks.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2022. He said he was “very upset and confused” about the stage 1 complaint response he had received and how the landlord was handling his complaint. He said:
1. The complaint had been ongoing since he moved into the property in November 2015. To state that the complaint was raised in April 2021 was a “serious misinterpretation of the truth”.
2. When he had viewed the property prior to moving in he had been told that the area at the rear of his garden would be tidied prior to him moving in and that the trees would be maintained.
3. The resident had contacted the landlord on many occasions and had been promised by several housing officers over the years that the issue would be resolved.
4. He had been told by the landlord that the land belonged to the local authority and then that various documents contained conflicting information about whether the land was owned by the landlord or the local authority.
5. The resident was happy that the hedge to the east and some tree branches had been removed. He was however still extremely unhappy that several branches were missed and the tree was not “scrapped” and so would re-grow. Overall the resident was “more unhappy…than [he] was happy”.
6. The resident did not see why adding the hedge and trees added to the landscaping program would increase the service charges for other residents as his was the only property that would be impacted.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 June 2022 to acknowledge his stage 2 complaint escalation.
On 5 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and stated that he wanted all communication related to his complaint to be in writing. He stated that this was because he felt that this was due to “inaccuracies” between what was said verbally and what was written by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident said that he had seen some improvements in the landscaping however little had been done to address the “height and density” of trees and shrubs to the rear of his garden. The resident expressed frustration that he had been complaining about the issue since he had moved in 7 years previously but that the landlord had only recently logged a formal complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2022. This stated:
1. The housing officer responsible for the estate was happy with the standard of the communal grounds maintenance and that it was in line with the existing contract.
2. The landlord was pleased that the resident had noted some improvements in the general landscaping.
3. The housing officer would continue to inspect the landscaping regularly.
4. No further work would be completed to reduce the trees at the rear of the resident’s garden but they would now be maintained as part of the landscaping contract.
5. Any growth in communal areas would be attended to as part of the landscaping contract. It was the responsibility of residents to maintain their own garden areas.
6. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in ascertaining who was responsible for the trees and shrubs at the rear of the resident’s property. As soon as it was confirmed that the landlord owned them, “considerable works were completed” to bring the area to an “acceptable condition”.
7. No additional visits would be added to the landscaping contract as this would “substantially increase service charge costs to all customers”.
8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint decision was upheld.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

In July 2023 the landlord provided this Service with evidence that demonstrates that between April and July 2023, seven grounds maintenance visits had been scheduled for the scheme and that all had been carried out. The landlord showed that it had carried out estate inspections in 2018 and a further two estate audits in April 2023 and July 2023 to monitor the standard of the grounds maintenance provision. This Service has not seen evidence of estate inspections or site audits carried out during the period of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of trees and shrubs overhanging into his garden.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for maintaining the garden of the property. This Service considers that it would be reasonable to expect that this would include basic gardening tasks such as weeding, grass cutting and some trimming of hedges and overhanging foliage.
The shrubs and trees that were overhanging into the resident’s property were not within the boundaries of the garden. They were however on land that belonged to the landlord and therefore the landlord was responsible for their maintenance.
It is also noted that the landlord was aware that the resident had limited mobility because of physical health conditions. This Service considers that the landlord should reasonably have taken into consideration the resident’s health when considering what tasks he could complete in the garden.
It is further noted that the resident has stated that his child was unable to use the garden due to allergies caused by seeds from the trees overhanging the garden. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident’s child may experience allergies which impacted her ability to play outside. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy states that the landlord will be clear about its own responsibilities and “communicate this consistently”. This has not occurred in this case.
The issue of who owned and was responsible for the land on which the trees and shrubs were located was first mentioned in the landlord’s records in May 2019. At this time the resident’s wife told the landlord that she was being told by the local authority that it was the landlord’s land and vice versa.
The records seen by this Service show that the landlord contacted the local authority to discuss ownership of the land in April 2021, almost 2 years after the issue of land ownership was raised. This Service considers this an undue delay.
Despite the landlord contacting the local authority in April 2021, the landlord did not accept responsibility of the land and shrubs and trees on it until February 2022. This Service accepts that legal issues over land ownership and boundaries can be complex and that they can take time to resolve. We consider however that the landlord should have maintained regular contact with the resident during this period.
Between May 2019 and February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on 11 occasions chasing a response to his issue regarding the trees and shrubs. On some occasions this Service has seen no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident. On one occasion in June 2021 the landlord explicitly stated that it would update the resident regarding the ownership of the trees and then failed to make contact until contacted again by the resident in November 2021. This demonstrated poor communication and caused the resident to invest more unnecessary time and trouble and experience additional frustration and distress.
Overall the landlord delayed unduly to address the resident’s concerns regarding trees and shrubs overhanging his garden. It delayed in contacted the local authority to investigate ownership of the land on which the trees stood. It then failed to communicate effectively with the resident which caused him to have to invest unreasonable time and trouble in chasing it for a response. Therefore this Service considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of trees and shrubs overhanging into his garden.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that communal areas including a communal access footpath were not being maintained.

The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for maintaining footpaths and communal planting.
The resident advised the landlord that an area of communal ground to the side of his property was not being maintained in May 2019. In June 2019 he advised that the access footpath was overgrown. The resident raised the issue again in October 2020 and in November 2020 the landlord’s contractor cut back the weeds and shrubs.
It was acknowledged by the landlord in internal communications in June 2019 and November 2020 that the access footpath was not on the grounds maintenance plan and so was not being maintained. Despite this, the landlord failed to take any action to add the area to the grounds maintenance contract and ensure that it was kept clear.
In February 2022 the landlord again identified that the access footpath was not being maintained as it had still not been added to the grounds maintenance contract.
This Service does not consider that it was reasonable that it took the landlord more than 2 and a half years to respond to the issue despite it being brought to its attention on multiple occasions.
References are made throughout the documentation seen by this Service that there had been a high turnover of housing officers in the area. The communications indicate that this may explain how the grounds maintenance issue was allowed to ‘fall between the cracks’.
The landlord itself within its internal communications points out that the resident and others on the street experienced an inconvenience due to the footpath not being cleared. Resident struggled to take their wheelie bins out to be emptied and this would have been a weekly inconvenience for a prolonged period.
It was also highlighted in the landlord’s own communications that the footpath was intended to provide access for emergency services to the back of the properties on the row. That this access was hampered due to the lack of maintenance of the area is a concern.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy states that schemes will be inspected regularly and that residents will be invited to attend these inspections.
The landlord has provided evidence that demonstrates that it carried out inspections in 2018 and in 2023. This Service has not seen evidence of inspections carried out during the period covered by this investigation between 2019 and 2022. The landlord has therefore failed to show that it has adhered to its own policy. It is not clear whether residents were invited to attend the inspections that were carried out prior to and following the period of this investigation.
This Service considers that had estate inspections been satisfactorily carried out with the participation of residents, the concerns regarding the access footpath and planting to the side of the resident’s property would likely have been highlighted to the landlord. The issue with the area having been missed off the grounds maintenance specification for the scheme should then have been found and addressed much more quickly.
It is accepted that the COVID-19 pandemic would have impacted on the ability of the landlord to carry out inspections (particularly with residents) during part of the period of this investigation. This is because landlords were prioritising essential tasks and staffing levels would have been impacted by absences and home working. This was not the case however for the full timeframe of the complaint.
It is understandable that the resident was concerned that he and others may have been paying for a service that had not been carried out. It is clear however from the landlord’s communications that the communal access footpath and communal planted area to the side of the resident’s property were not included on the grounds maintenance specification for the scheme. Therefore the residents were not paying for this area to be maintained and so were not out-of-pocket because of the oversight.
Overall, the landlord has not evidenced that it carried out estate inspections with residents between 2018 and 2023. The landlord failed to ascertain by itself or take note when the issue was first raised by the resident, that the access footpath and area of planting to the side of the resident’s property had been missed off the grounds maintenance specification. The footpath and area to the side of the property were therefore not maintained adequately and this caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that communal areas including a communal access footpath were not being maintained.

Complaint handling

This Service has seen clear evidence from the landlord’s own records that he and his partner asked it to raise a formal complaint into grounds maintenance and issues with trees overhanging the garden in June 2019, July 2019 and November 2020. The landlord failed to raise a formal complaint following any of these requests and failed to provide a formal complaint response.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge that it had not logged any of the resident’s previous complaints despite the resident clearly stating during his most recent complaint that he had previously been ignored. This was unreasonable as this Service has seen evidence that the landlord was aware of these previous contacts when it carried out its stage 2 complaint investigation.
The landlord’s complaint policy does not provide its response timescales. While this information is available on the landlord’s website an order has been made for the landlord to review its complaint policy with a view to including its response timeframes.
The resident asked the landlord again to raise a formal complaint on 11 April 2022. The landlord logged the stage 1 complaint on 25 April 2022 and acknowledged it on 26 April 2022, 15 days after it was received. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) operated at that time stated that a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within five days. The landlord failed to comply with this requirement and delayed unreasonably in logging the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 May 2022. This exceeded the timeframe in the landlord’s own policy (and in the Code) by 9 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay and this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed adequately acknowledge the delays in addressing the resident’s issues and stated an inaccurate timeline of events. It maintained that the resident had first raised the substantive issues in April 2021. This was incorrect as the landlord’s own records demonstrated that the resident had been raising the issue from at least May 2019.
The stage 1 complaint response failed to acknowledge and apologise for the landlord’s poor communication. The resident had to invest significant and unnecessary time and trouble to chase the landlord between May 2019 and May 2022 for the complaint to be logged and responded to. That the landlord failed to apologise for failing to communicate with the resident caused further distress.
The stage 1 complaint response also suggested that the resident had been unwilling to wait for the works to be completed. In fact the resident had been extremely patient and had waiting for at least 3 years for the works to be satisfactorily addressed.
This Service acknowledges that it is good practice for landlords to consult with all resident’s prior to making changes to services that would impact on service charges. It is also accepted that this is a requirement of the landlord’s grounds maintenance policy. It was correct therefore that the landlord advised the resident that it would consult other residents of the scheme before increasing the charges.
The landlord did not acknowledge in its complaint response that the areas of issue had not previously been included in the grounds maintenance contract for the scheme despite the landlord being responsible for their upkeep. Had it done so, this may have alleviated the resident’s understandable concern that he and others on the scheme had been paying for services that had not been completed.
As the landlord had discussed its complaint response with the resident prior to sending its written response it was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied and stated that it would escalate the complaint. The landlord advised the resident that it would contact him within 8 weeks. It is unclear to this Service why this timeframe was given to the resident when the landlord’s own policy and the Code stated that a stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman has recently investigated a number cases involving the landlord where the recording of a formal complaint was identified as an issue. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54 (f) of the Scheme for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures investigated in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review in the orders below.
The landlord failed to send an acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 complaint until 29 June 2022. This was 34 working days later, an unreasonable delay.
The landlord then provided its formal stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2022, 47 days working days after the resident requested an escalation. This was an unreasonable delay and constituted a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response inaccurately stated that the resident was generally pleased with the improvements in the general landscaping. This did not correspond with the resident’s communications with the landlord in which he stated he was “unhappy” with the work.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response still failed to fully acknowledge the timeframe of the issue and to apologise for its communication failures. It offered no financial redress to the resident for the detriment suffered including the significant time and trouble invested in pursuing a resolution for a period of 3 years.
Overall, the landlord failed to appropriately record and respond to the resident’s formal complaints in 2019 and 2020. It then delayed unreasonably in logging and responding to the resident’s 2022 complaint. The landlord’s complaint handling failed to acknowledge the extended timeframe of failures in the case or to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused or offer proportionate redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of trees and shrubs overhanging into his garden.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that communal areas including a communal access footpath were not being maintained.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed for a significant period to address the resident’s concerns regarding trees and shrubs overhanging his garden. It also delayed in contacting the local authority to investigate ownership of the land beyond the resident’s fence. The landlord then failed to communicate effectively with the resident which causing him to invest unreasonable time and trouble in chasing it for a response.
The landlord has not evidenced that it carried out estate inspections with residents between 2018 and 2023. It failed to act on its knowledge that the access footpath and area of planting to the side of the resident’s property had not been included in the grounds maintenance specification until 2022. These areas were therefore not maintained adequately for a period of almost 3 years.
The landlord did not record or respond to the resident’s formal complaints in 2019 and 2020. It delayed in responding to the resident’s 2022 complaint and failed to acknowledge the extended timeframe of failures. The landlord did not apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused or offer proportionate redress.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident £1,400 compensation comprising of:
1. £400 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble associated with failures related to the landlord’s handling of trees and shrubs overhanging into the resident’s garden.
2. £400 distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in communal grounds maintenance.
3. £300 for distress associated with its failure to log the resident’s complaints in June 2019, July 2019, and November 2020.
4. £150 for time and trouble associated with complaint handling failures.
5. £150 for distress and inconvenience associated with complaint handling failures.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review its practices in recording complaints. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Clarification of why an extended complaint response timeframe was applied in this case.
2. Identification of any other cases within the past 2 years where it has applied an 8-week timeframe for providing a stage 2 complaint response.
3. Consideration of whether a further review of any of the cases identified above is required.
4. Implementing a system of regular dip sampling of open and closed complaints to ensure that they are handled in line with the principles in the Code.
5. Introducing a system of authorisation for any time extension for complaint response over the timescale stipulated in the revised Code – this is due to be published within the 12-week compliance timescale.