London Borough of Enfield (202345701)

Decision
Case ID	202345701
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Enfield
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident has experienced issues about grounds maintenance and fly-tipping in the communal area adjacent to his flat, which has led to this complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about its grounds maintenance service including knee rail repairs.
   2. Handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its grounds maintenance service including knee rail repairs.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its grounds maintenance service including knee rail repairs

4. The landlord agreed on an action plan to improve grounds maintenance but did not follow through. Later on it did not acknowledge the previous agreement and did not acknowledge the delay in resolving the issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping

5. The landlord was aware of the persistent fly-tipping issues but only agreed to keep monitoring the area and a clean-up. It did not take other proportionate or effective action.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed in acknowledging the complaint and the subsequent escalation request. The complaint responses did not contain sufficient information such as a review of how long the delays had been and the target dates for completion.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £240 made up as follows: £60 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience related to its response to his concerns about grounds maintenance services including knee rail repairs. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience related to its handling of his reports of fly-tipping. £80 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 28 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must arrange an inspection of the grounds in the area. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a qualified surveyor with no prior involvement in the case, and the expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of the inspection or survey reports.   What the inspection must achieve: The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the grass, the shrubs, the elder bush and other areas of concern which the resident had raised in this complaint. The surveyor must produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 28 May 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure any works identified from the inspections (as ordered above) are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 11 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 June 2023	The resident wrote an email to express dissatisfaction about the landlord’s grass cutting service. He said the grass cutting was not frequent enough and clippings had been left on the grass, leaving the garden space ‘unusable’.
3 July 2023	The resident made an online complaint that the grass cutting was not meeting his expectations. He said he had met with the landlord’s staff who agreed on an action plan to improve grounds maintenance with him but had not followed through. He said that he expected workers to mow the grass but this had not happened The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
17 July 2023	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response, summarised as below: It apologised that its service did not meet the resident’s expected standards. The grass was cut on 6 July 2023. It would attend on 20 July 2023 again as per service standard, which said the grass should be cut on a 10-day cycle during growing season.
17 to 19 July 2023	The resident remained dissatisfied. He emailed to say the landlord had not fully implemented the action plan which he agreed earlier with one of its staff members. He asked the landlord not to close the complaint until it had done so. The landlord explained he could request escalation of his complaint and asked him to state his reasons why he remained dissatisfied with its previous response, and what outcomes he was seeking.
27 July to 25 September 2023	The resident repeated and expanded on his concerns through multiple emails to the landlord. He stated: Grass clippings had not been collected; There were ‘self-sets’ which needed removal; Shrubs were overgrown to the point residents could not access bin areas and required cutting; During grass trimming, the landlord had damaged some ornamental plants; He would like the willow canopy to be lifted and an elder bush to be trimmed; Knee rails were damaged; Neighbours from another street had been fly-tipping daily and the rubbish was obstructing the footpath.
28 September to 11 October 2023	The landlord sent an email to the resident to confirm escalation of his complaint. The resident did not initially receive this email. The landlord re-sent the acknowledgement email and explained it would provide a formal response by 9 November 2023.
13 November 2023	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said: It acknowledged its stage 1 response lacked ‘future planning’ and was ‘non-committal’. It had deployed a large capacity collection mower to remove the grass clippings but this mower could not always access the area. It had removed the ‘self-sets’. In line with its service level agreements, it would prune the shrubs twice per year. It had done the first cutback so that residents could access bin areas. The next cutback was scheduled for early 2024. It had passed the list of damaged plants which the resident provided to its supplier. It would replace the plants. It acknowledged that it had raised the repairs for the knee rails several times but no action had been taken. It said it would raise another repair job. It would assess the elder bush growth in November 2023 and raise the willow canopy in early 2024. It would monitor the area for fly-tipping. It felt it had completed ‘a high percentage’ of the resident’s requests throughout 2023. It could not complete requests like plant replacement and willow canopy lifting sooner as it had to wait for the appropriate season. It had to ‘operate across functions’ to effect waste management and knee rail replacement which caused a delay.
16 April 2024 (Referral to the Ombudsman)	The resident contacted our service for assistance. He explained he felt inadequate grounds maintenance had devalued his property and negatively affected his mental health.
April 2026	The resident explained to us there had been no improvement with the fly-tipping and the landlord had not carried out the actions it said it would do at stage 2.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance service and knee rail repairs
Finding	Service failure

7. There was no dispute between the parties that the landlord’s service level agreement had said during growing season (summer), the grass was to be cut every 10 days, and the grass clippings should be removed.
8. The landlord had identified in May 2023 during its routine site inspection that the grass and shrubs were overgrown. It was already aware of at least part of the issues at that point.
9. On 21 June 2023 the resident wrote to express dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance service. He informed the landlord that the grass and shrubs remained overgrown and some of the ornamental plants had been damaged. One of the landlord’s managers then met with him within a week and agreed to improve service. They agreed they would replace the damaged plants, collect the grass clippings, cut back the shrubs after nesting season and monitor service delivery. They said they would send him a schedule of works. These conversations were clearly documented in the landlord’s records.
10. While it was positive that the landlord met with the resident and agreed on an action plan, there was no record to show the landlord followed up on those agreed actions or provided an update. This has caused the resident frustration.
11. In November 2023, after escalation of the complaint, the landlord clarified that it had cut the grass. It said it had removed the ‘self-sets’ and cut back the shrubs but did not provide a date or otherwise evidence this. It again said that it would replace the damaged plant stock but did not say when it planned to do this. It acknowledged it had not done repairs for the knee rail, but merely said it would raise the repairs again, without setting out a target completion date.
12. Overall, while the landlord offered reassurance that it had at least partially addressed some of the resident’s concerns, it did not provide enough evidence to show it met its service requirements. It did not acknowledge that it had previously agreed on an action plan with him. Nor did it refer to the 5-month delay between June and November 2023 since it first agreed to replace the damaged plants and repair the knee rail. This delay had caused the resident frustration.
13. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had to communicate across different departments for the knee rail repairs, which it seemed to offer as an explanation for the delay. The landlord had an obligation to ensure effective communication across different teams to bring about repairs in a timely manner. The fact that grounds maintenance and knee rail replacement might involve different teams was not a reasonable explanation or justification for the delay.
14. The resident explained to us the plant replacement and knee rail repairs had not been completed as of April 2026. The landlord had not provided evidence to prove otherwise. The resident has experienced frustration and upset over 3 years over the lack of resolution of communal issues. The landlord had not offered a remedy for this.
15. Due to the reasons stated above, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance service and knee rail repairs.
16. Our compensation guidance states that in cases where there was minor failure by the landlord in its service and the personal impact to the resident is relatively low, it is appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation up to £100. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £60 in recognition of his frustration and inconvenience over these communal grounds maintenance issues. We have also ordered the landlord to re-inspect the grounds to identify any necessary works.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping
Finding	Maladministration

17. The landlord conducted monthly site inspections. The inspection reports showed that since February 2023, it had been aware of a persistent fly-tipping issue in the area. There was also a recurring issue of bulky household waste being discarded.
18. The resident met with the landlord’s staff on 27 June 2023, during which the resident referred to the waste issue and the landlord agreed to remove the waste. There was no record of the landlord following up on this.
19. The resident repeated his concerns in an email on 25 September 2023. He added that the people fly-tipping would verbally abuse and threaten residents in the area with violence if challenged by them.
20. The landlord responded on 13 November 2023 in its stage 2 letter to say that it had requested a clean-up and it was monitoring the area. As of June 2024, the resident told us the situation had not improved and any action taken by the landlord did not appear to have been effective in deterring the fly-tipping.
21. In view of the persistent and widespread nature of this issue in the area, the landlord should have considered an elevated response. It would have been reasonable to consider proportionate actions such as community engagement, installing CCTV and more frequent site visits and patrols. As the resident reported verbal abuse and threatening behaviour by the fly-tippers to people in the area, the landlord should address this and seek more information for risk assessment. Simply continuing to monitor the area was not adequate or proportionate to the situation.
22. Due to those reasons, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of fly-tipping.
23. It is appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation up to £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 in recognition of his upset and inconvenience over these communal waste disposal issues. We have also ordered the landlord to re-inspect the area to inform future planning around waste management.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

24. The landlord’s complaints policy defined a complaint as ‘any expression of dissatisfaction about a Council service that is being delivered, or the failure to deliver a service, which requires a response’.
25. This complaints policy also provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond within 10 working days; at stage 2 (the final stage) it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond within 20 working days. If the landlord requires more time at stage 2 it should contact the resident to explain why and the extension should not exceed 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlords are expected to adhere to.
26. The resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction as early as June 2023 and the landlord’s manager met with him to agree an action plan as part of dispute resolution. However, it was not until July 2023 (when the resident re-voiced his concerns after no follow-up from the landlord) that the landlord formally acknowledged his complaint. The complaint should have been acknowledged formally sooner.
27. At stage 2, there was also some delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The resident chased a response on 4 August 2023 saying that the landlord had not taken effective action on these issues and he felt dismissed. At this point, if not sooner, the landlord should have progressed the complaint to stage 2. Records showed that he had to repeat his concerns several more times. Although the landlord was in contact with him, it did not take steps to escalate the complaint until 28 September 2023.
28. There was a slight delay in issuing a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it would issue the stage 2 response on 9 November 2023 but in the end issued on 13 November 2023. Although the duration of delay was slight, it was likely to have caused the resident some frustration.
29. The complaint responses covered most aspects of the resident’s complaint, but lacked a review of what had happened previously. Consequently there was no full acknowledgment of delays, or the impact caused to the resident. They also did not contain clear timeframes for when the resident might expect completion of works. The lack of information caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
30. Due to the reasons stated above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
31. Our compensation guidance states that in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failings and/or when there were repeated minor delays, we may make a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay compensation up to £100. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £80 in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused by its delays in complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

32. The landlord was not able to refer to the action plan which it agreed with the resident in June 2023. If it had retrieved and reviewed this action plan during its internal complaint procedure, it might have given a more appropriate response to the resident to acknowledge its failure to do what it previously committed to.
33. The landlord did not communicate clearly to provide sufficient information about what dates it expected works to take place. The ambiguity and non-committal tone of its communication was a factor in causing frustration and inconvenience to the resident. If it had communicated more clearly some of this impact could have been mitigated or avoided.