Origin Housing Limited (202202128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202128

Origin Housing Limited

27 September 2023

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 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a semi-detached two bedroomed house with a garden. The resident has lived at the property since November 2015.
The resident said that she is registered disabled and believes that the landlord is aware of this. She said that she suffered from several health conditions which can cause her pain, fatigue, and make her unsteady on her feet. She explained that the landlord has been aware of her attending multiple hospital appointments during the duration of the work on the garden.
The landlord says that the resident is vulnerable because she claims universal credits and has rent arrears.

Tenancy agreement, policies, and procedures

The tenancy agreement says:
1. That the landlord provides the grounds maintenance service for the property.
2. That the resident is obliged to allow the landlord, or contractors acting on its behalf, access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to carry out repairs or work to the premises or adjoining property. The landlord will normally give at least 24-hour notice but immediate access may be required in an emergency.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says:
1. Non-emergency works will be raised as a standard works order and attended to the resident’s convenience within 28 days.
2. Once the repair is complete, the operative will call the controller to inform them that the repair is complete. The controller will arrange for the customer to be contacted. If the customer is not satisfied then the contractor will arrange another appointment to resolve the issue.
3. If access is gained then the operative will compete an initial assessment including an on-site risk assessment.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint policy:
1. Stage one responses within 10 working days.
2. Resident can request an escalation to stage 2.
3. Stage 2 responses within 20 days.
4. The landlord will explain any delays in responding and confirm a response date.
5. All points raised will be addressed.
6. Clear reasons will be given for decisions.
The landlord says that compensation is money is paid to residents in the event of them experiencing actual financial losses because of the landlord or its contractor’s actions. It also says:
1. That compensation relating to a loss of room use will be considered on a case-by-case basis. It will be considered where a household has not had the use of a room, beyond published repair times. The landlord may offer compensation as a proportion of the weekly/monthly rent.
2. The landlord may consider making a good will gesture payment as part of saying sorry to customers following any actions which may have caused loss or distress to the customer.
3. Damage to possessions where a resident’s belongings have been damaged because of ongoing disrepair or flooding for which the landlord is accepting liability a payment may be appropriate.
4. When the landlord doesn’t respond to a complaint within the time scale, the landlord will issue a £10 voucher per late response. The landlord can apply discretion and pay up to £100 compensation for a stage one complaint and up to £250 for a stage two complaint.
The landlord uses contractors to carry out repairs. For clarity, the report will refer to the landlord’s contractors as contractors. When using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as a landlord.

Summary of events

In June 2019, when repairing the resident’s patio, the landlord noted an issue with bamboo growing from a neighbouring property. It removed some of the bamboo without fully removing the roots. The landlord recorded that ‘the bamboo would become a problem in years to come’.
The landlord returned in 23 June 2020, to fix a broken fence and noted:
1. The neighbour’s bamboo had grown into the resident’s garden.
2. The bamboo had grown in the resident’s the shed, which would need replacing.
3. The bamboo had grown in the middle of the resident’s garden and had lifted the patio.
4. The bamboo would need to be dug up to prevent it from growing back.
5. The garden would require extensive works.
Both, the resident, and her neighbour were experiencing issues caused by bamboo and made complaints to the landlord about it. Between May 2021 and August 2022, the landlord was in regular correspondence with the resident and her local councillor about the issue.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2021. The complaint was about:
1. Bamboo growing in the resident’s garden causing damage to her lawn, plants, and fence.
2. The length of time it was taking to resolve this matter.
The resident also told the landlord on 13 May 2021, that a member of the repairs team had been rude towards her, during a telephone conversation.
The landlord provided the resident with the stage one response on 14 May 2021. Its response was as follows:
1. It apologised for the time it had taken to resolve the issue.
2. It had arranged for remedial work to begin on 14 June 2021.
3. It said that the work would involve:
  1. Removing the fence between the properties.
  2. Removing the uneven slabs.
  3. Digging out both gardens.
  4. Replacing the rear fence with concrete gravel boards fitted into the ground to prevent roots coming through.
  5. Removing the bamboo roots.
  6. Backfilling with topsoil.
  7. Laying quality turf.
  8. Replacing the fence.
4. It arranged an onsite meeting with the landlord of the neighbouring property on 19 May 2021.
5. It apologised for the repairs team members conduct towards the resident. It said that it had raised the issue with the senior manager of the team to address, and it will contact the resident following an investigation into the matter.
6. It offered a good will gesture of £50 to the resident.
The remedial repairs to restore the garden started in June 2021. The resident told the landlord in June 2021 that her garden was dug up and some of her belongings were damaged. The resident said that the work had stopped because of concerns about the workmanship and the quality of work.
The landlord agreed to replace the resident damaged belongings: plants, the swing chair, the garden table, the clothesline, the shed, the chairs and their covers. The evidence does not show when the agreement was made with the resident.
The resident said that she made a request to escalate her complaint to stage two, the date the request was made was not shared. On 8 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the matter to stage two of the complaint process. The landlord also told the councillor in an email on 9 July 2021, that it was investigating a stage two complaint for the resident.
In an email with the landlord on 13 July 2021, the resident said that the landlord had agreed to remove a skip and portable toilets left outside her property but had failed to do so. The resident explained that she had asked for the toilets to be removed as it had started to smell and the local children were using it.
The resident told the landlord in July 2021, that its contractor had stored some of her belongings to the side of the house, which was open and not secure. Some of her items were then stolen.
On 9 July 2021, the resident told the landlord that its contractor had contacted her directly when it had been agreed that all contacts would be made via the landlord. She said that she was uncomfortable in dealing with the contractor directly. She reiterated that she wanted all contacts to be via the landlord. She told the landlord on 2 February 2022, that the issue happened previously in August 2021, when the contractor contacted the resident several times when she was away on holiday. This was after it was agreed all contact would be via the landlord. She said that she felt harassed by the contractor.
The resident contacted the local councillor for support in June 2021. The councillor attended her property on 8 July 2021. In an email to the landlord the following day, the councillor said that the garden was in a ‘sad state’. The councillor asked to meet with the landlord to discuss the issue and agree a resolution.
The landlord met with resident and the councillor at the property on 16 July 2021. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and disturbance caused. All parties agreed what work was needed to return to garden to what it was before the issue with the bamboo started. Following the meeting, the landlord emailed the resident a document with a layout of the garden and the scope of the remedial work agreed.
The remedial work resumed on 9 August 2021. The resident was on holiday at the time. She said that she had agreed for the work to proceed on the condition that her neighbour could act on her behalf if anything went wrong. Her neighbour asked the contractor to leave after a day. This was because, the contractor had changed the schedule of work without discussing it with the resident. The landlord had said that any change to the schedule would be discussed with the resident before any change would take place.
On 3 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord by email and expressed her frustration that she had received no reply to her previous emails. She said that she had not been able to use her garden since 14 June 2021. She also said that since the contractor left in August 2021, her garden was unsafe. She told the landlord that she had a fall in the garden and had damaged the nerves in her arm.
The landlord said that it had contacted the resident on 13th August 2021, by email, and offered a new contractor to finish the work. The landlord also asked the resident whether she would rather use her own contractor. It said it received no response to its communication. It made the offers to the resident a second time on 3rd September 2021. The landlord provided the resident with a list of local landscape gardeners. It advised that if she wanted to proceed with her own choice of contractor, she could provide a quote for the landlord to consider. The resident did not accept the offer to source her own contractor . Alternatively, the landlord told the resident that they would appoint a new contractor who could meet the resident to agree a new scope of work.
The resident, landlord and its contractor met on 13 September 2021, and agreed the scope of work to be done. The work resumed in the garden on 28 September 2021.
Communications between the resident and the landlord in September 2021, showed that there were some misunderstandings on when the work was to start. The landlord apologised to the resident for the confusion.
The landlord agreed to replace the resident’s shed in September 2021, after it was damaged by its contractor. However, the evidence provided showed that the landlord and the resident have a different recollection of what happened with the replacement shed:
1. The resident said the contractor ordered the wrong shed. she believed the replacement shed was of a lower quality. In an email on 18 November 2021 the landlord stated the replacement shed was of a better quality.
2. The resident told this service on 4 May 2023 during a telephone conversation that the landlord asked her to attend the garden centre with the contractor to purchase a replacement shed. She said that the contractor took her to its usual supplier instead of the garden centre.
3. The resident told the landlord that, without her consent, the contractor dismantled her shed on 18 November 2021, to install the new one. When she refused the replacement shed, the contractor erected her old shed back, the resident said the shed was no longer watertight and some of her belongings were damaged. The landlord told the resident, that the contractor put extra protection on the shed once it re-built it and should not be held responsible for damages to items in the resident’s shed after that period.
4. The resident also said that the contractor told her that it put a new order for a replacement shed, the supplier found no record of this. The resident shared this information with the landlord via email in February 2022.
5. The landlord said in an internal email in August 2022, that the resident refused the shed its contractor purchased in November 2021. It said that this was because ‘the resident wanted the shed, she had seen at the local garden centre, and refused to accept anything else’.
6. The landlord told the resident in the stage two response that its contractor had placed an order with the local garden centre for the shed she wanted in December 2021. It said that it had a 10-week delivery time. It also said that the contractor cancelled the order for the new shed when they were not allowed back on site.
The resident told the landlord that the contractor had told her on 18th November 2021, that it was their last day and that the work was completed. The resident disputed this and informed the landlord. She said that the contractor had not finished her barbeque, not laid the turf, it had not replaced the shed and had not installed the lights on the fence. The resident also told the landlord that several replacement items had not been purchased. The landlord responded and explained that they had experienced difficulties in sourcing some materials and items and that they were working on it. The landlord told the resident that once they had sourced the items the contractor would return to complete the work.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged that not all the work was completed and that some mistakes were made. It also acknowledged in an email to the councillor on 2 February 2022, that the contractor had failed to provide daily site management. It apologised to the resident for the failings and offered to source an alternative contractor. It also offered the resident the option to source her own contractor.
The resident said to the landlord in February 2022 that she felt angry that she had been ‘made out to be a liar’ and shared several points of dissatisfaction. The landlord apologised for the contractor’s conduct and confirmed that it had addressed it. It also proposed solutions to all the points raised by the resident and confirmed that it was seeking a new contractor.
On 19 May 2022, the resident said she had not received a response to her stage two complaint. She said that ‘she had repeatedly asked for a response’ and that the landlord had previously said that it was dealing with her stage two complaint. The landlord responded to the resident on 25 May 2022. It explained that the original complaint was raised by her neighbour and as such the stage one and stage two responses were addressed to her neighbour and not to the resident. The landlord asked the resident to provide a copy of her stage one response as it did not have it on record.
The resident provided a copy of her stage one response on 31 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged that a stage one response was sent. It said that the resident did not make a request to escalate the complaint to stage two. It asked whether the resident had any specific concerns with the work, over and above those raised by her neighbour. It suggested that the resident outlined these so it could formally respond.
The landlord said in May 2022 that it had been looking for a new contractor and it was difficult to find someone available to complete the work. It also said that it was committed to finish the work as agreed. On 27 May 2022, the landlord said that it had found a new contractor and they could meet the resident on 16 June 2022. It also said that the contractor’s site manager and the landlord would oversee the work. There is no record that the resident responded to the request to arrange the appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2022, requesting a response to her stage two complaint. She said that she had been waiting for a response since August 2021. She said that she had provided evidence to the landlord that she had made a stage two escalation request in 2021. She told the landlord that she had received no response. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 June 2022, and confirmed that her stage two complaint was being investigated.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord reminded the resident that the new contractor was able to resume the work if she wanted to proceed. It also again offered her the opportunity to organise her own contractor if she preferred. In July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said that it had received no response to its offers. The resident told the landlord that she was not prepared to meet the new contractor until she had received a response to her stage two complaint.
The landlord informed the resident that due to the complexity of the case, there would be a delay in responding to her stage two complaint. It said it would respond by 8 July 2022.
The landlord provided the stage two response on 8 July 2022, and said:
1. It recognised that the works to the garden have taken too long to complete and that to have the works outstanding for this length of time must have been stressful for the resident.
2. When it became aware of the resident dissatisfaction with the contractors, it took appropriate action in trying to resolve the issues. It offered several alternatives and attempted to discuss ways forward with the resident. It was satisfied with the way in which it had handled organising replacement contractors. It said that its offer for the resident to source her own landscaper, was reasonable.
3. It was satisfied that the actions taken to resolve the resident’s concerns were appropriate and that the work had not be completed as she was no longer willing to engage in conversations about how she would like to proceed.
4. In August 2021, the contractor changed the schedule of work to get some of the work completed earlier. The landlord also said that following the contractor leaving the site, it sent another contractor to make the garden safe. It told the resident that she had stopped the work in August 2021.
5. It offered the following compensation to reflect the impact the issue had on the resident and in recognition that she had not been able to fully enjoy her garden:
  1. To pay the resident £20.56 per week compensation, backdated to 14 June 2021. This amount was calculated on the basis that the loss of use of the garden should be treated as if a room were out of use. The final amount will be calculated upon the work being completed.
  2. To replace the items which were damaged by its contractors: the swing chair, the garden table, the chairs and their covers. It said that these had not been delivered as it had been unable to agree a date with the resident for delivery.
  3. It will replace any plants that have been damaged. It will either arrange for the resident to receive a voucher or attend a garden centre with the resident to pay for the items directly, depending on her preference.
6. It said that if the resident didn’t respond by the end of July, it would assume that she no longer wished for the landlord to carry out the work, and no further compensation will be due.
7. It recognised that the experience had been frustrating for the resident and it hoped that both the level of compensation offered, the replacement of her damaged items and the offer to discuss the best way forward, demonstrated its commitment to putting this right.
8. It had investigated why the resident was not provided with a stage two response when her neighbour was. It concluded that a stage two response should also have been provided to the resident and apologised that it was not.
9. It offered to pay £100 compensation because of the way in which the complaint was handled and for the time and effort the resident spent in requesting a stage two response.
10. It confirmed that the complaint policy was discussed with the staff who dealt with the escalation request, to prevent further failings.
11. The resident’s feedback had been a valuable learning opportunity for the landlord and her experiences were shared with senior managers as a learning point to ensure that this would not happen again in the future.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage two response on 11 July 2022, and said that:
1. In August 2021, it was her neighbour who asked the contractor to stop the work due to mistakes in workmanship. The resident was on holiday abroad at the time.
2. The contractor had ordered the wrong shed, which was returned on arrival. She said that her shed ‘had been broken down not dismantled’. The resident’s shed was then put back together. The roof was not watertight, there was a hole on the side and the door was not closing. The contractor said that a new shed had been ordered and would be delivered mid December 2021. The resident said that she had an email from the supplier which confirmed that the shed was never ordered, she also said that she had previously shared this with the landlord.
3. The landlord had not addressed that it had lied.
4. It is not appropriate for the landlord to add a cut-off date to the ‘loss of room’ compensation. The resident said that it was the landlord who continued to cause the failings.
5. She queried why the source of the bamboo had still not been dealt with. She said that it meant her garden was still at risk of regrowth as no bamboo barriers were installed.
6. The resident said the landlord failed to address several of her complaint points:
  1. Why there was extreme deformation of character against her?
  2. How the failings occurred?
  3. How the health and safety had never been addressed?
  4. Why the contractor was allowed to harass her, to come to her property unannounced, and to call her unnecessarily?

Post final response

The landlord asked the resident on 21 July 2022, whether she would consider working with the landlord to resolve the issue. It reassured the resident that this would not influence the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The landlord informed the resident in August 2022 that a contractor was on standby to resume the work. The landlord said that it could not guarantee the contractor would still be available unless the resident confirmed she was happy to proceed quickly. The landlord has updated this service that it received no response from the resident.
In recent contacts with the Ombudsman, the resident said that:
1. Prior to the issue with the bamboo issue, her garden was easy to maintain with several established plants and an easy to maintain lawn.
2. Her garden had been ‘a sanctuary’ to her and she used it daily. She had ‘enjoyed relaxing in her garden with a cup of tea and a book’. This was especially important to the resident due to her disability as it offered her some respite for the challenges she faced.
3. Since the issue with the bamboo started in 2019: her garden has been dug up four times and been left ‘in an appalling state’. She said that the garden is no longer safe to use as the patio is uneven and there is a steep slope, which is an issue as she can be unsteady on her feet due to her disability.
4. The contractor’s conduct had caused frictions between her and some of her neighbours.
5. Some of her belongings were stolen from her garden.
6. She was called a liar several times by the landlord and the contactors.
7. The contractor who attended the property in June 2020 and June 2021, had shown no respect for her belongings.
8. The landlord was aware that she attended several hospital appointments but never asked her about her wellbeing.
9. She had to constantly chase the landlord and report issues. She said it had been draining, time consuming and that ‘the landlord and contractors had me in floods of tears’. She said that she felt ignored by the landlord and felt that ‘it did not care’.
10. She saw some of the workmen researching the internet on their phone to find out how to erect a fence panel as they did not know how to do it, this caused the resident some concerns. She lost trust in the landlord.
11. She said that the experience had affected her life and health, and that ‘the experience had been dreadful’.

Assessment and findings

The resident says that she is registered disabled and suffers from several health conditions. She says that the landlord is aware of this fact. The landlord provided no evidence that that it discussed the impact of this matter on the resident’s health or her vulnerability. The resident said that the landlord made no attempt to discuss her wellbeing with her, which made her feel that the landlord did not care about her. This had a negative impact on the tenant landlord relationship.
The landlord’s record showed that it assessed the resident’s vulnerability based on the risks to her tenancy. It failed to fully assess or explore the resident’s vulnerability or disability. It was not proactive in offering support to the resident or discuss her needs in relation to her health. The landlord failed to ask the resident about the multiple hospital appointments she was attending and whether there was any support it could offer. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the resident and assess her vulnerability in terms of her health. This would have enabled the landlord to understand the resident’s needs, the impact of the complaint matters on her and whether reasonable adjustments were required.

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

When the resident first reported the issue, in June 2019 the landlord attended the property and tried to resolve the matter within the time frame set by its repair policy. Those were appropriate actions for the landlord to take and in line with its obligations.
The landlord showed flexibility with the resident. Each time the resident refused for a contractor to return to her property, it discussed the issues with her and agreed to look for an alternative contractor to carry out the work. It is noted that this contributed to the delays in resolving the issue. It is also worth noting that each time the resident refused for a contractor to return, this was because she identified failures in the service delivered, these failures were acknowledged by the landlord.
The evidence showed that the landlord reacted to each of the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction and took steps to remedy the situation on each occasion. The landlord has demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the issue caused by the bamboo. It organised four different teams to carry out the work and offered for the resident to organise her own contractor. Those were appropriate actions to take by the landlord. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord tried to put things right several times.
In 2020 the landlord attended the property and recorded that the bamboo had spread and it ‘would need to dig out the bamboo to prevent it growing again’. The landlord provided no evidence that it took suitable actions to address the bamboo and resolve the issue permanently at this time. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to take appropriate and timely actions to resolve the problem. This was a missed opportunity which cause the resident significant inconvenience and distress.
Between May 2021 and June 2021, the landlord communicated regularly with the resident, it agreed a way forward to resolve the issue. Those were appropriate actions to take by the landlord to resolve the issue and rebuild some trust with the resident.
Since 2021, The landlord has made several promises, agreements and commitments to the resident but failed to deliver. The Ombudsman identified the following failings:
1. The landlord and resident agreed what work was required several times. They agreed three detailed work schedules on three separate occasions with two different contractors. Each time this entailed the resident attending several meetings and monitoring the work being done. It involved the resident repeating herself numerous time and complaining several times.
2. The landlord apologised several times and acknowledged that it had lacked oversight of the work and did not provide what was promised to the resident. It also failed to learn from previous mistakes and failed to communicate effectively with its contractors. The landlord provided evidence that it continued to try to put things right and propose remedies to resolve the issue. However, it kept repeating the same failings. The accumulations and repetitions of failings from the landlord continued to impact the tenant/landlord relationship. It also repeatedly caused the resident considerable inconvenience and distress.
3. The landlord recognised that it had failed to adequately supervise the work. Because of this, some of the remedial work was not completed to the agreed standards and the site was left unsafe. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the contractors carry out the work to good standards, work in line with health and safety requirements and leave the site in a safe condition. Because of the failings, the resident experienced an increase in time and effort to contact and report the issues to the landlord. The resident also reported in June 2021, that she could no longer use and enjoy her garden. This caused the resident considerable inconvenience, frustration, and distress.
4. The landlord agreed to remove a skip and portable toilet from the resident’s property and failed to do so in the agreed time frame. The resident had to report and chase the landlord for it to act. This was time consuming and stressful for the resident, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to take the actions it had committed to.
5. The landlord provided no explanation why the contractor continued to contact the resident directly and could not evidence that it investigated the failings. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to record the resident’s preferred method of communication. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that relevant contractors were informed and respected the resident’s wishes. Because of those failings, the resident felt harassed by the contractors.
6. In September 2021, a new contractor arrived, but the resident asked them to leave, because she had not seen or agreed to the final work schedule. She said that this made her feel awkward, embarrassed and that it should not have happened. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to ensure it effectively communicated with the contractor and avoided repeating previous failings due to poor communication.
7. The resident had to chase the landlord several times for updates, actions, and information. The evidence shows the landlord was reactive to the issues when prompted by the resident. The landlord was not proactive in managing the works and did not prevent the same repeated failings happening. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have oversight of the works, and monitor progress and standards. Because of those failings, the resident experienced considerable inconvenience, distress, time wasted, loss of trust and frustration over an extended period.
8. The landlord said in its response to the stage 2 complaint that the resident stopped the work in August 2021, when in fact she was on holiday. The records show that she had informed the landlord she would be away and provided authorisation for her neighbour to act on her behalf. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to keep suitable records of agreements it had made with the residents. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to refer to those records as part of the complaint investigation. The resident said that she felt that the landlord was calling her a ‘liar’, which was upsetting to her. This impacted on the landlord tenant relationship and was avoidable.
In 2021, the landlord had agreed to replace the resident’s shed. It had been damaged by the bamboo and by the actions of the contractor. This was an appropriate action to take. Its offer was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
There are discrepancies in the recollections of what happened with replacing the shed. The evidence shows that miscommunication between the landlord, contractor, and resident contributed to the different recollections of what happened with the orders and delivery of the shed. Those failings further deteriorated the tenant landlord relationship. The resident also felt that she had not been believed and that her character had been questioned. The Ombudsman identified several failings on the part of the landlord including:
1. The resident said that the landlord had told her to visit the garden centre with the contractor to purchase a shed. She said that the contractor had not been informed of this by the landlord and took her to his usual supplier instead. The landlord provided no evidence to dispute this. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have made it clear to both parties where the shed should be purchased from.
2. The resident said that the incorrect shed was delivered. The landlord provided no evidence that it investigated whether a mistake had been made during the order or on delivery of the new shed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to try and understand what happened.
3. The landlord concluded in November 2021 and in August 2022, that the resident refused the shed delivered because she wanted the shed which she had seen in the garden centre. It offered no evidence to support this. It was unfair for the landlord to come to that conclusion without evidence.
4. It is unclear why the landlord did not tell the resident in January 2022, that the second shed order was made to a new supplier. If it had, it would have prevented the resident experiencing further distress over the issue. As a result of those communication failings, the resident felt that she had been lied to and did not believe that the landlord had made a second shed order. She felt that her character has been called in question. She also felt ignored and said that she no longer trusted the landlord.
The resident told the landlord in September 2021, that she had fallen in the garden as it was a health and safety hazard. She said that she suffered an injury. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident report of injury and concerns over health and safety.
In this case, the landlord provided no evidence that it discussed the accident with the resident. It provided no evidence that following the report of the accident, it asked its contractor to evidence that a suitable risk assessment had been carried out at the site. It also failed to evidence that it recorded the accident or considered whether it was required to report the accident to a relevant authority. Those would have been appropriate actions to take. The lack of concern shown to the resident by the landlord, further reinforced the resident’s view that it did not care about her, further damaging the landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord offered the resident the opportunity to organise her own landscaper on two separate occasions, this was a reasonable offer to make. The resident did not to respond to the landlord’s offer.
The landlord said that the resident refused for the contractor to return to the site in January 2022, and has not engaged with the landlord to resolve the issue since. The records show that the resident had been chasing the response to her stage two complaint, which she made in July 2021. Despite her garden having been dug up four times to resolve the issue, it had not been returned to how it was before. The resident said that ‘she had been patient and done everything the landlord had asked and no longer trusted the landlord’. She said that she would not allow another contractor on site until the concerns she raised in the stage two complaint were addressed. In the circumstances of the case, this was a reasonable request from the resident.
The landlord offered to replace the resident’s shed which was reasonable. The resident refused the replacement shed offered by the landlord as the shed delivered was the incorrect shed. The evidence suggests that a mistake on the order and a misunderstanding due to poor communication caused the issues at the time. It is reasonable for the landlord to remake a final offer to replace the shed which the resident can chose to refuse.
The landlord made some reasonable offers to the resident for redress, for example it agreed to replace the resident’s damaged items. The landlord also decided to consider the garden as an extra room and to consider the total loss of its use after the 14 June 2021. In accordance with its compensation policy, it calculated that compensation for the loss of use of the garden would be £20.56 per week. The landlord said that it will pay the compensation from 14 June 2021 and until the work is completed . The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has been flexible in applying its compensation policy when considering the garden has an extra room. It is a fair and reasonable offer and the offer appropriately reflects the loss of access to the garden since 14 June 2021.
After considering all the facts of the case, the Ombudsman has concluded that the offer of compensation did not reflect that the resident did not have full use of her garden prior to 14 June 2021. An appropriate level of compensation for the period between 24 June 2020 and 13 June 2021, is £10.28 per week. This is the equivalent of 50% of the landlord’s previous offer and calculation for loss of a room. This reflects the failings between when the landlord identified the severity of the issue and the remedial work needed, to when it started the work to put things right. It also recognises that the resident could not fully enjoy the garden during that period but retained some use of it.
The resident would not allow another contractor on site until her stage two complaint issues were addressed. In the circumstances of the case, this was a reasonable action from the resident. When the landlord subsequently responded on 8 July 2022 it committed to resolving the issue and offered a way forward to the resident. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord. The resident did not accept the offer and did not allow access.
In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman will limit the weekly compensation paid to reflect the loss of access to the garden until the date access was denied. The compensation reflects the failings and lack of action from the landlord. It recognises the consequential inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the loss of use of her garden. It also recognises that the resident retained some use of it during some of that period. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident:
1. £524.28 compensation for the period between the 24 June 2020 and 13 June 2021. This being equivalent to £10.28 per week for 51 weeks. This is equivalent to 50% of the landlord’s rate for the loss of use of a room.
2. £1,151.36 compensation for the period between 14 June 2021 and 8 July 2022. This being equivalent to £20.56 per week for 56 weeks. This is equivalent to 100% of the landlord’s rate for the loss of use of a room.
3. The Ombudsman will also order the landlord to resume paying £20.56 from the date contractors access the garden, with access granted by the resident, and until the work is completed.
The landlord’s offer did not appropriately or explicitly acknowledge the overall impact and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. Because of the landlord’s failings, the resident was left to monitor the work of the contractors. She had to initiate contact with the landlord every time something went wrong. The resident had to meet several times with the landlord and new contractors to agree work schedules. This was stressful, time consuming and frustrating for the resident. The Ombudsman considered its own remedies guidelines, which are published on its website. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £400 compensation to the resident. The level of compensation is to reflect the time and trouble the resident took over three years to try and resolve the issue.
The landlord has offered to organise a new contractor to carry out the remedial work and return the garden to where it was before the issue started. This is a reasonable offer by the landlord. The Ombudsman would encourage the resident to resume contact with the landlord and allow access for the remedial work to be completed.
Overall, there was mal administration, the landlord has been reactive and failed to recognise and address the same issues repeatedly. It is recognised that the landlord made attempts to put things right. The landlord has failed to deliver on its promises and meet its obligations. It has shown poor communication, lack of oversight, poor information recording and a failure to learn from mistakes. Because of those failings, the resident experienced considerable inconvenience, distress, time wasted, loss of trust and frustration over three years. She also lost the use of her garden, she said that her garden was her ‘sanctuary’, and she has deeply felt the loss of the space.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2021. The landlord provided the stage one response on 14 May 2021, which was within the landlord’s policy published time frame.
The landlord’s complaint policy and the Code say that the landlord will deal with all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for decisions. The landlord failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaints at both stages. This deprived her of having her complaint fully responded to. It also prevented the landlord from fully understand its failings and it missed the opportunity to learn from its mistakes:
1. In the stage one complaint, she complained about the length of time taking to resolve the matter. The landlord provided no evidence that it investigated what happened between June 2019 and May 2021 and provided no explanation for the failings to act in a timely manner.
2. At stage two, the resident said that not all aspects of her complaint were addressed. The Ombudsman was not provided with a copy of the stage two escalation request. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not able to assess whether the landlord fully responded to the stage two complaint.
The resident said that she escalated her complaint to stage two in July 2021. The exact date of the request for escalation is unclear. The landlord confirmed in two separate emails that the residents’ stage two complaint was being investigated. The Ombudsman can therefore conclude that the landlord was investigating the complaint on 8 July 2021. The lack of evidence provided by the landlord on this matter indicates record keeping failures.
The records show that the resident received a response to her stage two on 8 July 2022, which is 235 days outside the landlord’s policy and the Code published time frame. The landlord’s complaint policy and the Code say that at a stage two, the landlord must respond to a complaint within 20 working days. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding. However, the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord told the resident that that the original complaint was raised by her neighbour. It said that because of this, the stage one and stage two responses were addressed to her neighbour and not to the resident. The resident disputed this. She provided the landlord with a copy of the stage one response she received. This shows that the landlord had recorded and investigated her complaint separately to her neighbour’s complaint. The landlord provided no evidence that it discussed the residents making a joint complaint. It also failed to evidence that, at any stage, it considered the complaints to be joint. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to make her own request to escalate her complaint to stage two and to expect a response .
In the stage two response in July 2022, the landlord acknowledged that it should have responded to the stage two escalation request of the resident in 2021. It apologised and confirmed that the complaint policy and procedure was discussed with the staff member to ensure that this would not happen again in the future. Those were appropriate actions for the landlord to take.
Good record keeping of all interactions, and actions taken, is an essential activity of the landlord. The evidence shows several record keepings failures:
1. Missing stage 2 request.
2. Misunderstanding it was not a joint complaint.
3. The schedule of works updates.
4. Not complying to the agreement made for no direct contact from the contractor.
5. Recording the resident’s disability and vulnerability.
6. The shed ordering.
7. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers reading and implementing the good practice in the Knowledge and Information Management report ( https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf ).
When considering all aspect of the case, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. This is because, the landlord failed to handle the complaints in line with its policies and the Code. For example, it did not respond within the published time frame, it did not address all aspects of the complaints and it delayed the request for escalation to stage two.
The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident because of the way in which the complaint was handled. It said it also reflected the time and effort the resident spent in requesting a stage two response. The landlord’s compensation policy says that the landlord can pay up to £100 compensation for a stage one complaint, and up to £250 for a stage two complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the failings in the handling the complaint.
However, the Ombudsman concluded that the landlord’s offer of £100 is too low. It does not appropriately reflect that there were failings at both stages. The Ombudsman considered its own remedies guidelines and the landlord’s compensation policy. The Ombudsman concluded that a fairer offer will be £400. This is equivalent of:
1. £150 to reflect the failings in not addressing all aspects of the complaint at stage one.
2. £250 for failing to respond to the stage two complaint within the published time frame and the extended delay.
3. It will reflect the overall impact and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings. It will also reflect the time and effort it took for the resident to get a stage two response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the garden

The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord tried to put things right several times, however, it also identified a series of failures. Since the issue started the landlord failed to be proactive enough to resolve the issue. It consistently failed to work proactively, to prevent the failings happening or to learn from its mistakes. Because of this, it repeated the same failings several times and compromised the tenant landlord relationship. It continuously failed to communicate effectively with its contractors and the resident, and it did not supervise the work. The lack of coordination and oversight caused extensive delays and issues with the quality of works carried out. Because of this, the standard of the work was compromised and health and safety became an issue. The failures had a significant impact on the tenant landlord relationship.
Due to the accumulations of failings and the delays in resolving the issue, the resident faced substantive damages to her garden and belongings. She also lost access to the garden and was unable to enjoy its use. The landlords failures left the resident to oversee the work, to spend a lot of her own time dealing with the issue and to contact the landlord every time something went wrong. She also had to meet with the landlord and different contractors several times to agree a way forward. This was time consuming and unfair. The resident lost trust in the ability of the landlord to put things right. She experienced considerable inconvenience, frustration, distress, time loss, and frustration over three years.
The landlord failed to assess and record the resident’s vulnerability in relation to her health. Because of this, it did not consider the resident’s disability. It did not consider whether it would have been appropriate to make reasonable adjustments in its handling of the repairs to the garden.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord failed to address all aspects of the complaint at stage one and because of this, it deprived the resident of having her complaint responded to. It also missed the opportunity to learn from its mistakes and prevent repeating the failings. It failed to respond in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
It also failed to provide the resident with a response to her stage two complaint within the published time frame without providing a valid reason for the delay. The resident spent considerable time and effort in requesting a stage two response. She had to argue her case and evidence that she had received a stage one response for the landlord to provide a response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its failures.
2. Pay £2475.64 compensation to the resident to reflect its failures:
  1. £524.28 to reflect the lack of action from the landlord and the consequential inconvenience this caused to the resident between 24 June 2020 and 13 June 2021. It also acknowledges that the resident could not fully enjoy the garden but retained some use of it during that period. (The landlord should deduct the £50 it offered at stage one if it has already paid this to the resident).
  2. £1,151.36 compensation for the period of 14 June 2021 to 8 July 2022 in recognition of the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident. It acknowledges that the resident could not enjoy her garden during that period.
  3. To pay £400 compensation to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience to the resident over three years.
  4. To pay £400 to the resident in compensation to reflect the failure in the handling of her complaint. (This is including the £100 offered at the stage two response).
3. To resume paying £20.56 per week (as calculated by the LL for loss of a room) from the date contractor access is granted by the resident until the work is completed. A clear schedule of works should be agreed so all parties know when the work is completed.
4. Upon evidence of the additional cost being provided by the resident to reimburse the resident for the cost of electricity and water, used during the works.
5. To comply with the offers it made to the resident to replace her damaged items:
  1. Replace: the swing chair and cover, the clothesline, the garden table, and chairs plus their covers.
  1. To make a final offer to replace the shed with a ‘like for like’ shed of equal quality. If the resident does not accept the replacement shed, we will not expect the landlord to make an alternative offer.
  2. To replace any plants that have been damaged. The landlord can either arrange for the resident to receive a voucher or attend a garden centre with the resident to pay for the items directly, depending on her preference.
6. To inspect the resident’s bar and either repair it or replace it with a ‘like for like’ bar of equal quality. If the resident does not accept the replacement bar, we will not expect the landlord to make an alternative offer.
7. To agree which items had been stored in the resident’s shed before the contractor’s dismantled her shed. To replace the items which were damaged because of the actions of the contractor.
8. To agree which items had been stored in the resident’s shed before the contractor’s dismantled her shed. To replace the items which were damaged because of the actions of the contractor
9. Update the resident’s vulnerabilities on internal records.
The landlord to review the key case findings around its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden and its handling of the complaint. Within 4 weeks, the landlord will provide the Ombudsman with an action plan detailing how it intends to improve its performance in these areas. The report should confirm the changes implemented or the date for implementation.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review the contract management arrangements with its contractors. The review should consider:
1. Process sharing and recording the works agreed, so details can be access internally.
2. Processes to manage allocation of the work.
3. Effective communication with all parties.
4. Oversight of the work and health and safety.
5. Inspections.
6. Record keeping.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider the KIM report when reviewing improvement needed to its record keeping. The report can be accessed at: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf.