Leeds City Council (202007461)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007461

Leeds City Council

10 May 2021

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 repairs to the resident’s garden.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and commenced her tenancy at the property on 7 February 2020.  The property is a two-bedroomed house with a garden.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2020 to chase the clearing and cutting back of her garden after a team it sent on 24 January 2020 was unable to complete the work due to access issues at the time.
4. An internal email from the landlord on 2 March 2020 showed that the work had yet to be completed and it had chased this internally. The resident chased the work again on 6 March 2020 and it advised her on 10 March 2020 that it would be attending that day to carry out the work. The landlord called her on 12 March 2020 to confirm the work was done satisfactorily which she confirmed it was.
5. On 29 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about issues she had discovered with her garden. She had found that there was debris including “coils from the mattresses and poles” embedded into the soil from the previous tenant burning items in the garden. She said that the area needed digging up and was a health and safety concern for her and her children. The resident said that she was unaware of the extent of the damage to the lawn when she first moved in. She added that she also had concerns about the fence which had no gate and one side appeared incomplete because of a “huge gap” in it.
6. On 15 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to relay that workers had raked over the debris from the damaged area of the garden, but she remained concerned about whether it was safe for her and her children. She added that there was a sloped area of the garden which she felt was a hazard and that there was a fault with the wall which had affected her neighbour. The resident asked the landlord to visit the property to discuss her concerns.
7. On 18 June 2020, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. She said that three weeks ago she had attempted to cut the grass in the garden but had found that the grass had been “obliterated” by the previous tenant whom she believed had burnt items on the lawn. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord not acknowledging her communication about this.
8. The resident stated that the higher level of the garden was a “mini hill” with a stone wall at the bottom which she felt was a hazard for her child. She also highlighted that the fence was incomplete, the garden flagstones were uneven, and the garden was overgrown. The resident asserted that the back garden was not safe, and she wanted it brought to a manageable state for her to look after.
9. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 30 June 2020. It advised that it had been following up on her reports of the garden with its voids team but acknowledged that it had delayed in giving her an update and apologised for this. The landlord informed the resident that it had arranged for repairs to address the uneven flagstones, make safe the wall and fence, and inspect the garden. It confirmed to her that any issues with the garden relating to the “greenery, grass/soil and maintenance” was her responsibility as per her tenancy agreement.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 July 2020 to escalate her complaint to the next stage. She was unhappy that the work done by the landlord so far was to cut back the nettles, which had since grown back, and to spread the ‘dirt’ around the garden. The resident explained that her dissatisfaction was to do with the following:
    1. She was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord about her garden issues.
    2. She held that the garden was unsafe, describing the top of the garden as uneven, with ungated steps and covered in nettles, which made it hazard to children. The resident wanted the garden to be levelled for her children’s safety.
    3. She said that the grass at the bottom of the garden had been “destroyed” as the soil had been removed, leaving only “pure dirt”. The resident asked how she was expected to maintain the garden and make it safe for her children.
    4. She pointed out that the flagstones were uneven.
11. The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 23 July 2020 in which it acknowledged that her contact had been passed on to staff to arrange assistance for her with the garden, but it had not fed back to her what actions it was taking. It advised that it had fed back to its staff to ensure that, if it received email enquiries, it should respond by email.
12. The landlord said that it had been “unfortunate that corona virus restrictions had prevented it from inspecting the garden and acknowledged that the garden needed to be addressed and apologised that it had not yet done so. It advised it would arrange for an inspection of the level of debris in the garden and obtain a quote for its removal. The landlord relayed that it had also arranged for an inspection of the flagstones but cautioned that this may not be within normal timescales. It confirmed this was its final response to the complaint.
13. After a surveyor’s visit at the beginning of August, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 21 August 2020 that the top and bottom levels of the garden would be made “safe to use”. It clarified that this involved removing debris from the lawn, which the previous tenant had left embedded into the ground and dealing with the flagstones. The landlord stated that it would follow its surveyor’s judgement on how many flagstones would need to be replaced but it would leave the area “safe to use”.
14. To address the slope from the upper level of the garden to the lower level, the landlord proposed to install gabions, which the resident declined on 10 September 2020, and later it offered to plant privet hedges, which she declined on 6 October 2020.
15. On 6 October 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not be carrying out any further work to her garden as it had confirmed that work had been completed to turn the soil in the lower level of the garden and it had arranged for a charity to attend to cut back the greenery, hedges, and grass. It said that the garden had now been restored to a “blank canvas” and any further maintenance would be the responsibility of the resident. The landlord offered again to plant privet hedges on the upper level of the garden but confirmed it would carry out no further work.
16. The uneven flagstones were confirmed to have been completed on 28 October 2020 when they were replaced with a concreted area.
17. The resident advised this Service on 26 January 2021 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the work carried out by the landlord as:
    1. It had agreed to level out the upper level of the garden to remove the slope but had not done so.
    2. It had removed the flagstones and replaced them with concrete which she felt was a greater trip hazard. 
    3. The grass which was dug up on the lower level of the garden was not levelled and no soil was put down.

Assessment and findings

Policies

18. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord confirms that she is responsible for the maintenance of the garden, including trimming shrubs and hedges, and cutting lawns. This also states that if a garden is overgrown, “and there is no good reason why [the resident] cannot do it, the [landlord] may clear it and charge [her] for the work provided”.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s garden

19. When a prospective tenant commences a tenancy, it would be expected of them to satisfy themselves that the property is suitable for their needs; this would include ensuring that the garden is suitable for the needs of themselves and their household.
20. The resident has complained about the layout of the upper level of her garden being unsafe for her children. This is not a defect and would have been visible to her when viewing the property prior to her commencing her tenancy. As this was not a defect, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decline to carry out any works to alter this. Levelling the upper level of the garden would be an improvement to the property and the landlord is under no obligation to carry out improvements to a property.
21. The landlord identified two defects which it agreed to inspect in its final stage complaint response on 23 July 2020: that there was potentially hazardous debris embedded into the lawn from the previous tenancy, and that the flagstones were uneven. As these were potential hazards, it was reasonable for it to take responsibility to remedy these. While the resident was dissatisfied with the work undertaken by the landlord to remedy the uneven flagstones by laying concrete in their place, it is noted that on 21 August 2020 the landlord said it would follow the advice of its surveyor regarding this work. It is reasonable for a landlord to carry out works based on the recommendations of its appropriately qualified staff and therefore it was it was reasonable for it to carry out the repair to the flagstones in this way.
22. It is noted that the landlord offered plant hedges or install gabions to provide some measure of protection against slips from the upper level of the garden, both of which were declined by the resident. As mentioned previously, there was obligation on it to carry out alterations or improvements to the property. These offers, therefore, were made in excess of its obligations as a landlord, as it is stated in its tenancy agreement, above at point 18, that the resident is responsible for the maintenance of the garden. That the landlord made these offers demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to address the issues raised by the resident concerning the upper level of her garden.
23. There was no evidence of the landlord offering to level the lower level of the garden, only for it to address the debris imbedded within the soil. It is evident that this was completed but the resident remained dissatisfied with the condition of the lower level of the garden. There is no evidence of the landlord making a commitment to carry out any further maintenance of the garden, and in any event, there was no obligation on it to do so, a per the tenancy agreement above at point 18. Therefore, there is no evidence of any failing by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s garden.

Reasons

25. The landlord acted reasonably in addressing the defects which were potentially dangerous and made reasonable efforts to address the other safety concerns raised by the resident, despite there being no obligation upon it to do so.