Progress Housing Association Limited (202411263)

Background

1. The resident reported issued with her rear garden and issues with a fenced-off area also at the rear. She complained on 5 October 2023 about these issues and about access to the front of her property. She was unhappy with the landlord’s final response, so she asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues in her garden and request to improve access to her property.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues in her garden and request to improve access to her property.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of issues in her garden and request to improve access to her property

4. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations about front access to her property. It promised works to the rear of the property but was delayed in completing these and it did not update the resident appropriately.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord managed the complaint in line with its complaint policy.

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 resident complained that there was a grass slope at the front of her property, which she had no choice but to walk down to access her car on the street. In its stage 2 response, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations on the matter. It explained that it would be unfeasible and unsafe to install steps on the slope, and it had budget restrictions. It said it would not take this forward. This was a reasonable explanation. We have seen evidence that the resident had a separate footpath in which she could access the street, and the grass slope was not the only option to do this.
7. The resident also complained about the ditch area at the rear of her property. She said the landlord had previously fenced it off, and as such, the vegetation could not be maintained. She said litter was being thrown into the area, and there was a risk of rats. She also said there was a dangerous tree at risk of falling.
8. The landlord visited the property as part of its stage 2 response on 14 December 2023. It detailed this in its response, recognising the issues with the rear of the property. It found the resident had issues parking at the front of her property. Although she had a hard-standing area at the rear to park she had no access to her property from this. It confirmed it would further inspect the property at the start of 2024. It agreed it would look at levelling land behind her home and install a new rear gate. It also agreed to communicate about options for the ditch area. These were all appropriate steps to manage most issues.
9. However, the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about the dangerous tree or the risk of rats in its stage 2 response. This would have given assurance to the resident. It did however go on to fund pest control treatment on 16 January 2024, which was an appropriate step. The resident would later mention the tree in May 2024 but did not continue her concerns about it being dangerous, suggesting this was no longer an issue.
10. The landlord completed the further inspection it promised on 19 December 2023. It is unclear what the outcome of this was. There is no evidence that it updated the resident on this or that it completed any further work at this time. This led to the resident raising her concerns again on 20 May 2024. She also said the vegetation from the ditch area was further overgrown and was scratching her car. The landlord repaired the rear fence and installed a rear gate by the start of July 2024.
11. The landlord provided a further stage 2 response on 10 July 2024. This was nearly 7 months after its previous stage 2 response. It confirmed that it inspected the property on 5 July 2024. It agreed to install a patio and would match fund levelling of the garden if the resident arranged the work. It also agreed to cut back the ditch area. It completed the patio installation within 2 months. However, it did not clear the ditch area for 4 months, and there is no evidence that it updated her until November 2024. This was over 12 months after the resident’s original complaint. This was unreasonable. The landlord has confirmed the resident has not requested the funding to level her garden.
12. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its further stage 2 response. It did not apologise or consider compensation for the impact of the delays and its lack of communication. It should have done this in accordance with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation regarding this.
13. In summary it managed the residents’ expectations regarding access at the front of her property and agreed to take further action regarding the rear of the property. However, it was delayed in beginning this and did not update the resident until she complained again. It completed the work it agreed to in its further stage 2 response but work to clear the ditch area was further delayed, and the landlord did not update the resident. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the issues, as although it made attempts to put things right, it did not address the failings or the detriment to the resident.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
15. The landlord acted in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code in its handling of the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. As such, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

16. The landlord should ensure that it appropriately responds to all issues raised in a complaint. This will assure the resident and show that it is taking all matters seriously.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. Some of the information provided by the landlord was limited, although not to a level that affected this investigation. Landlords must maintain a robust record of contacts, especially when it involves work and communication. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord should consider the recommendations in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management for accurate record keeping.

Communication

18. The landlord failed to consistently update the resident on outstanding work. Had the landlord provided more informative communication at the time of the complaint, it could have reassured the resident that it was taking the matter seriously.