Octavia Housing (202432284)

Background

1. The resident told her landlord that her garden was waterlogged and she was unable to use it. She said that her son who has autism uses the garden as part of his daily routine, and that it was a safety hazard because pooling water created muddy, slippery conditions. She also reported that her decking was in a state of disrepair and she raised safety concerns because it was spongy underfoot.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues in the garden including:
      1. The ongoing flooding of the garden.
      2. The safety and disrepair of decking.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues in the garden.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There were delays in inspecting the issues that the resident reported, and the landlord failed to address them within its repair timescales. While the landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation to the resident, it failed to complete the actions it said it would in its final response and did not identify any learnings.
5. There was a significant delay by the landlord in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, and the level of compensation it awarded was not proportionate to that delay.

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.

6. The landlord’s repair policy sets out how it prioritises repairs once they are reported:
   1. Emergency: Attendance within 24 hours, with repairs completed where possible, in situations involving immediate danger to people or to make the property safe.
   2. Urgent: Attendance and completion within 5 working days where prompt action is required but there is no immediate health and safety risk.
   3. Routine: Attendance and completion within 15 working days where the issue does not cause immediate inconvenience or danger.
7. The landlord’s policy does not specify its responsibilities regarding residents’ private gardens. However, the tenancy handbook states that residents with a private garden are responsible for keeping it in good condition. It is unclear whether this responsibility extends to work that might prevent the garden from becoming waterlogged. Despite this, throughout its communication with the resident, the landlord assessed the garden, identified potential causes, and undertook repairs. As such, it is not in dispute that the landlord accepted responsibility for completing any necessary works to resolve the issue.
8. The resident reported that she had experienced flooding in the garden since moving into the property in 2006. Both parties provided information that was dated after the landlord issued its final complaint response on 27 March 2025. As this material was not considered by the landlord during its complaints process, it would not be appropriate for us to assess it within this investigation. Given the length of time that has passed and the limited evidence of earlier reports, it is reasonable to focus our assessment on the landlord’s response to the issue between 14 March 2024 and its stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2025. However, we have referred to some information after this date for context.

The ongoing flooding of the garden.

9. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2024 to report concerns about inadequate drainage in the back garden. She explained that the issue posed a safety risk and requested a visit so the landlord could assess what works were required. The landlord’s repair notes show that a contractor attended on 20 March 2024 and identified several factors contributing to the flooding. The contractor recommended that a building surveyor with relevant expertise assess the garden to determine necessary works. The contractor re‑attended on 12 April 2024, but no resolution was identified. The landlord noted that it would consult its landscaping contractors to develop a solution. This was an appropriate initial response, as the landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe and took proactive steps to understand the issue.
10. Between 10 May and 22 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord several times due to a lack of updates following the contractor’s visit. On 31 May 2024, the landlord advised that its surveyor would be in touch to arrange an inspection. However, there is no evidence of any further attendance until 4 October 2024. This delay was not appropriate. The landlord should have either acted within its 15‑working‑day timescale for routine repairs or provided regular updates if delays were unavoidable.
11. Following its attendance on 4 October 2024, the landlord noted that the garden’s gradient and the high water table in the surrounding area were contributing to water pooling. It agreed to instruct a drainage company to explore potential solutions and to discuss options with its contractors before developing a plan of action. The landlord has not provided any evidence that these steps were taken, and it appears no further action occurred regarding the garden until August 2025. This was not appropriate of the landlord who should have carried out the actions it said it would and update the resident accordingly.

The safety and disrepair of decking.

12. On 5 July 2024, the resident reported that the decking was sagging and no longer supported by its frame. The landlord arranged an inspection, which its contractor carried out on 16 August 2024. This was outside the landlord’s 15‑working‑day timescale for routine appointments and was therefore not appropriate. The landlord also recorded that a further inspection took place on 9 September 2024 to make the decking safe. However, no notes from either inspection were retained. This demonstrates poor record keeping. Accurate records are essential for a repairs service, enabling the landlord to meet its obligations and to monitor and manage outstanding works. In this case, the lack of adequate records meant the landlord was unable to provide accurate information and contributed to delays in communicating necessary works to the resident.
13. The landlord inspected the decking on 4 October 2024. It recorded that it was unable to lift any boards to identify the cause of the subsidence. The surveyor carried out a visual inspection and suspected that the timber frame beneath that section of the decking was rotten and required replacement. The surveyor recommended that the contractor return to lift the decking, inspect the underlying structure, and provide a quote for any necessary repairs. The landlord acted reasonably at this stage by attending, identifying a likely cause, and setting out the next steps required to progress the repair.

Putting things right

14. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged both communication failures and delays in service delivery, and it apologised to the resident. It accepted that it had not provided a meaningful resolution to the issues and noted that it had failed to record information about the progress of works. It awarded a total of £1,350 compensation broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for delay in delivery of services.
    2. £150 for lack of communication.
    3. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
15. Where failures by a landlord have occurred, as in this case, we consider whether the redress offered sufficiently addresses the issues and resolves the resident’s complaint in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s compensation offer aligns with our compensation guidance for a finding of severe maladministration, which applies where there have been serious and repeated failures that have had a significant impact on a resident. Therefore, we find the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable.
16. In both of the landlord’s responses, it did not identify any learnings to improve its service. Whilst it has provided us with an explanation for delays in completing the works within the information we requested, it has not demonstrated it has recognised any improvements to its ways of working. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided evidence that it completed the actions it committed to in its stage 2 response, which was not appropriate. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of these repairs. This is because it did not identify any learnings – a key aspect of our Complaint Handling Code – and it failed to complete the actions it committed to in its final response, or explain to the resident why it was unable to do so.
17. We recognise that in July 2025, the landlord raised a new complaint about further communication issues. While we did not consider this as part of the investigation, it is clear the landlord continues to engage and recognises the impact its lack of action had on the resident. In this response, the landlord identified learning points and said it had put extra resources in place to speed up communications about repairs.
18. Evidence provided by both parties suggests conflicting information from various inspections by the landlord and its contractors regarding the scope of works required for the decking. It would have been better if it explained to the resident what repairs it will carry out and why it was doing this. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to write to the resident and provide her with a full scope of works and timeline to complete the repairs to both the decking and the garden. We have also set a deadline for the completion of the repairs to the decking.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says that when it receives a complaint, it will:
    1. Acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
    3. Acknowledge a review request within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
    4. Extend the response time by 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2 if it is unable to respond within its timescales.
20. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 19 August 2024 and acknowledged it on 29 August 2024. This was a minor delay outside its timescales. The landlord called the resident on 17 September 2024 to discuss an extension. It was agreed that it would respond by 20 September 2024 but the landlord emailed the resident that day explaining that it was making arrangements to review the decking and provide a report on its condition. This was not appropriate because the landlord delayed requesting an extension and it did not detail when it would aim to respond to the resident’s complaint in its email on 20 September 2024
21. We contacted the landlord on 24 February 2025 requesting it to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 by 5 March 2025. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 March 2025. The landlord recognised this delay in its response and apologised to the resident. It awarded her £50 for its delay in responding to the complaint.
22. The resident requested a review of her complaint on 17 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged her request in line with its policy and was appropriate in providing its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
23. The landlord demonstrated poor complaint handling in the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It failed to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and there was a delay of over 6 months in responding to the resident’s complaint. Whilst it initially requested an extension, it did not provide its response within that timescale and did not provide any further updates to the resident which was not appropriate.
24. The landlord did not identify any learnings in its complaint procedure; however it explained to us that it has recently been reviewing its complaint procedure to ensure it is complaint with the Code. It also explained that it has recruited and trained more complaint handlers to improve the service.
25. The landlords guide to redress, remediation and compensation states that it will redress £50 for responding to a stage 1 complaint outside of its timescales. It advises that it consider different amounts in exceptional circumstances, but this is the minimum offer it would make. The landlords offer of £50 for its complaint handling is in line with a service failure where there was a minor failure such as a minor delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. This was not proportionate to the landlord’s failure which amounted to a lengthy delay which affected the timely resolution of the dispute. Therefore, we have made a finding of maladministration and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

26. The landlord should review its processes in handling similar repairs to ensure that repairs are identified in a timely manner. This should reduce any delays and prevent the requirement of numerous surveys.
27. The landlord identified learnings in its complaint handling and said it has implemented some of these to improve how it responds to complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord failed to record notes and acknowledged this in the complaint procedure. It should review how its record keeping procedures, in particular respect to visits from it’s contractors.

Communication

29. The landlord acknowledged that communication with the resident was poor. It would be beneficial for the landlord to review this case with its teams to identify ways of improving communication and help demonstrate the importance of communicating well with its residents.