Incommunities Limited (202311966)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. The resident has mobility issues known to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about a neighbour’s proposed extension.
   2. Concerns about a boundary fence erected by a neighbour.
   3. Reports of pests.
   4. Reports of an uneven garden following works.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to concerns about a neighbour’s proposed extension.
   2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to concerns about a boundary fence erected by a neighbour.
   3. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s response to reports of pests.
   4. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to reports of an uneven following works.
   5. Service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

A neighbour’s proposed extension

5. The resident experienced a delay in the landlord responding to his concerns about a neighbour’s proposed extension following a cyber incident that impacted its systems.

Boundary fence

6. Although the landlord was not responsible for a boundary fence erected by the resident’s neighbour, the resident experienced a significant delay in it considering whether it could take any action to resolve his safety concerns.

Pests

7. The landlord did not initially respond to the resident’s concerns about rats, but later instructed its pest control team to assess and treat the issue as a gesture of goodwill.

Uneven garden

8. The resident experienced a delay in the landlord levelling and seeding the garden.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord did not address an issue raised in the resident’s initial complaint and then raised this as part of a new complaint, which prolonged its handling of the matter.

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 investigated

10. The resident told us that this and other issues raised as part of his complaint had impacted his mental health, causing stress. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him 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. Although we’ve not investigated this further, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

11. On 18 August 2023, the resident expressed concern that a neighbour’s proposed extension would impact his privacy and block light to his home. However, the landlord did not respond, which likely caused the resident distress and prompted him to raise this as part of a formal complaint on 2 October 2023.
12. On 3 October 2023, the landlord apologised for its failure to respond to the resident’s original contact. It then visited him on 20 October 2023 to discuss his concerns. Following this, the landlord reviewed the extension plans to determine whether its lack of response had caused any detriment to the resident, as planning permission had since been granted for the extension. The landlord’s visit and subsequent review of the extension plans showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 1 November 2023 explained that a cyber incident had caused it not to respond to the resident’s concerns before he complained. However, following its review of the situation, it said it would not have raised any objection to the extension. This meant there had been no detriment to the resident.
14. We have made a finding of service failure because the landlord’s apology alone did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. This was due to a delay of over 6 weeks in the landlord responding to his concerns that a neighbour’s extension would detrimentally impact him.

15. On 7 June 2023 and 18 August 2023, the resident raised concerns about the safety of a neighbour’s boundary fence. We would have expected the landlord to respond to the resident in a timely manner. However, there is no evidence that it responded to either of the resident’s contacts, which likely caused him inconvenience and distress.
16. The resident raised this issue as part of his formal complaint on 2 October 2023, which prompted the landlord to inspect the fence on 20 October 2023. The landlord documented that the fence looked very unstable and could be a potential risk if it was to fall down due to being at a higher level than the resident’s garden. Following the visit, the landlord considered whether it could take any action regarding the fence, which was appropriate.
17. The landlord reinspected the fence on 9 November 2023. An internal landlord email on 21 November 2023 noted that it had a fence on the boundary with the resident’s neighbour that was “atrocious”. It also noted that the neighbour’s fence was leaning onto its fence and “would collapse at some point”. However, the landlord took no further action. This was not reasonable and showed a lack of concern for the resident’s safety.
18. The resident next pursued the matter on 26 February 2024, expressing further safety concerns about the fence. However, the landlord did not respond, which likely caused him further inconvenience. The resident then re-raised this in his escalation request on 3 April 2024, which prompted the landlord to further consider the issue.
19. In its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024, the landlord said its legal team was dealing with the boundary fencing and would visit on 7 May 2024 to gain an understanding of the issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider legal action to try to resolve this due to not being responsible for the neighbour’s fence that was not on its property. However, the resident experienced a significant delay in the landlord considering further action as approximately 11 months had passed since he first raised safety concerns.
20. We understand that the installation of replacement fencing took place in January 2025, 19 months after the issue was raised. This timeframe was excessive.

21. On 7 June 2023, the resident reported an issue with rats coming from another property. The landlord has a pest control team. Although its website says it does not deal with pests outside the home unless it’s communal land, shared blocks or retirement schemes, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, which showed a lack of empathy for his situation.
22. The resident raised the pest control issue in his formal complaint on 2 October 2023 and during the landlord’s subsequent visit on 20 October 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 1 November 2023 said it had advised the resident during its visit that he should report the issue to Environmental Health. However, there is no documentary evidence of this, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
23. The resident re-raised the issue of rats on 26 February 2024, but the landlord did not respond. This likely caused the resident inconvenience and prompted him to include this in his stage 2 escalation on 3 April 2024. He said no one would take responsibility to resolve the issue. The resident’s escalation of this matter prompted the landlord to arrange for its pest control team to attend to treat the problem on 23 April 2024. This was reasonable as a gesture of goodwill due to its process being not to treat pests outside the home. The landlord’s pest control team then made 2 further visits to resolve the issue.

24. When the landlord visited on 20 October 2023, the resident reported that soil and debris had been left following works to a retaining wall, leaving the garden uneven. As this did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, the landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response.
25. However, the resident then raised the issue as part of his escalation request on 3 April 2024. This prompted the landlord to include the issue in its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024, in which it said it had agreed during a visit the previous day that it would level and seed the garden. The landlord has provided evidence that it did this when it undertook works to fencing at the front of the property on 22 July 2024. However, it is a failing that it did not do this sooner.

26. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2022 edition. The landlord had a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales for acknowledging and responding to a complaint at each stage of its 2-stage process. However, the Code specifies extensions for issuing responses at each stage, whereas the landlord’s policy did not; nor does its current published complaints policy.
27. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. Where this was not possible, it should have kept the resident informed of any delay. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy. On 18 October 2023, it apologised that there would be a delay of up to a further 10 working days, which was also in line with its policy. It then appropriately issued a stage 1 response within this timeframe.
28. In his formal complaint, the resident said groundworks had left a triangular patch in the garden that was not fenced in and did not have a clear boundary. Due to the resident not raising this when the landlord visited on 20 October 2023, the landlord did not provide a full response to this at stage 1. However, this was not appropriate and prompted the resident to escalate his complaint.
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 2 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days, which was in line with its complaints policy.
30. When the resident re-raised the triangular patch as part of his escalation request, he also raised issues that had not formed part of his initial complaint. The landlord said it would raise a new complaint for the new issues, which was in line with the Code. However, it incorrectly said the resident had not previously complained about the triangular patch and raised this as part of a new complaint, too, which prolonged its handling of the issue.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord provided no evidence that it advised the resident to report the pests issue to Environmental Health during its visit on 20 October 2023.
32. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Communication

33. The landlord should not have prolonged its handling of one of the resident’s initial complaint issues by raising this as part of a new complaint. Improved communication with the resident may have prevented this error.