One Housing Group Limited (201910740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910740

One Housing Group

30 April 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 concerns:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s questions concerning the communal garden.
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s historical concerns with the communal garden.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
4. In August 2018 the landlord sent its residents a consultation letter and, following this, the garden at the rear of the building became communal. That communal status was then confirmed with the resident in a previous investigation by this Service in June 2019. In his current complaint, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not explained the status of the garden, and that he had not received a key to access the garden, despite him having asked for both things for “at least a year”. The resident was aware that the garden was communal in July 2019. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised with the landlord concerning the issues mentioned above until July 2020. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(e), this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in 2020, and will not include its actions from mid-2019. Any reference to them is for background information only.

Background and summary of events

5. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
6. According to the landlord’s records, it attempted to deliver a key to the resident on 24 April 2020. However, the landlord has also provided evidence for this investigation of it attempting a delivery on 23 March. It is therefore unclear in which month the attempted delivery was carried out.
7. On 9 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. He asked it to explain the status of the rear garden. He also asked for his tenancy agreement to reflect that he had access to the communal garden, and asked for a key to a gate that would give him access to the area.
8. According to the landlord’s internal correspondence, it attempted to contact the resident on 22 July 2020. As it was unable to contact him via telephone, it sent him an email regarding the questions he had raised. Evidence of this email has not been provided for this investigation.
9. On 27 July 2020 this Service contacted the landlord. We asked it to provide the resident with a response to his complaint concerning the communal garden.
10. On 13 August 2020 the landlord issued its complaint response. It apologised that it had been unable to resolve the resident’s complaint at the informal stage of its complaint procedure.
11. It explained that in July 2019 it had written to all residents in the building to confirm that the garden was for communal use. It explained that “members of staff [had] left the organisation” and it was therefore unsure whether the resident had received a key. It said that a delivery attempt was made on 24 April 2020. It apologised that he had not yet received the key, and asked him to confirm a date that would suit him for it to re-send it.
12. The landlord said that it had “updated [its] records to confirm that the garden [was] communal and confirmed that “copy of the permission [was] stored with [the resident’s] tenancy agreement and [its] documented management system”. It advised the resident to keep a copy of this complaint response alongside his tenancy agreement for “future reference”.
13. The landlord said that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint as, although it had attempted to provide him with access to the garden, it was unable to establish whether attempts were made prior to 24 April. It apologised for the delay in providing the resident with a key. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

Assessment and findings

14. In the resident’s complaint he asked the landlord to explain the status of the garden. He also advised the landlord that he did not have a key to access the garden and that he wanted his tenancy agreement to be altered to reflect this change in his access.
15. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had not received a key, apologised for this, and took steps to resolve the issue by arranging a new date to send it. It explained that it had previously attempted to send a key in April 2020 but that this attempt was unsuccessful. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have confirmed with the resident at the time to see whether he had received the key, as this may have reduced the likelihood of him raising a complaint in this respect. Nevertheless, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident informing the landlord that he had not received the key. In light of that, it was not unreasonable for the landlord not to have made any further delivery attempts until August, after it had been notified. The resident’s request for a key to access a communal area was a reasonable one, and similarly the landlord’s response, and attempt to deliver another one was also reasonable in the circumstances.
16. In its complaint response the landlord advised the resident that it had updated its internal records to confirm that that garden was communal, and that the relevant documents were stored on its document management system. This shows that the landlord took steps to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint, and its response was relevant and proportionate to the resident’s request, especially given that altering a tenancy agreement is not usually a straight-forward matter. Therefore, the landlord’s advice to the resident to retain its letter as proof that he had access to the garden was a reasonable and practical suggestion.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this complaint.

Reasons

18. The landlord answered the questions raised by the resident and its response demonstrated that it had acted upon his complaint to resolve the issues he had raised.