Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sovereign Living Limited (202015350)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015350

Sovereign Living Limited

18 May 2022


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. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the property’s rear garden;
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began on 12 August 2019. The property is a recently constructed three-bedroom house and the resident is its first occupant. The landlord took possession of the property, from the developer, in July 2019. The resident has two young children with disabilities.
  2. The landlord’s aftercare document confirms defects are “more serious faults with the build quality of your home that may need attention”. Repairs, damage, homeowner maintenance issues and cosmetic flaws are not defects. The landlord is obliged to notify the developer of any reported defects. The developer is responsible for any remedial works.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It aims to resolve complaints within ten working days at stage one. It aims to respond within 20 working days at stage two.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s call notes show the resident made a telephone enquiry on
    2 September 2019. They confirm she reported grass in the property’s rear garden was “completely dead”. Further, while viewing the property in July 2019, she was told the landlord would water the grass regularly until she moved in.
  2. In email correspondence to the landlord on 18 September 2019, the resident said she was watering the grass daily. However, the lawn wasn’t “settling”, and long weeds were growing everywhere. She said they were becoming difficult to manage and “getting in the way” of her children playing in the garden. The resident attached several related pictures to the email.
  3. The landlord updated the resident on 4 October 2019. It said the developer had declined to attend the garden. This was on the basis the lawn was in good condition whilst it was responsible for the property. Further, the resident’s images showed the garden had not been maintained. This prompted the resident to raise a formal complaint with the landlord on the same day. She said she was being unfairly blamed for the condition of the garden.
  4. The parties exchanged emails on 8 October 2019. The landlord said the property’s condition was approved during a handover inspection. It also said the developer would only attend defects following this inspection. The resident restated she was told the grass would be watered until she collected the keys. She said weeds confirmed the developer had not treated the lawn properly. Further, the situation was distressing because her children were unable to use the garden. She again asked for the matter to be treated as a formal complaint.
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests it logged a complaint on
    15 October 2019. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s response.
  6. Internal correspondence from 8 November 2019 shows the resident had been told the landlord would re-turf the garden. It said the complaint would therefore be closed but the resident would be kept updated.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 June 2020. The email’s wording shows the correspondence was prompted by recent contact from the resident to the landlord’s defects team. The landlord said its records showed the resident’s previous complaint was already resolved because the garden “was turfed”.
  8. The resident responded on 6 July 2020. She said the garden was hazardous for her children, who were frequently falling over and getting hurt.  Further, it was “bumpy and uneven” and contained a “very high slope”. She said the landlord agreed to provide new turf and someone had previously measured the garden with a view to completing these works.
  9. On 17 July 2020 the landlord advised it would arrange an inspection of the garden. It said it would repair any areas that were not properly laid. However, the shape and slope of the resident’s garden had not changed since she accepted the property. Since the parts of the development were located on an incline, no levelling works would be undertaken to the garden.
  10. During internal correspondence on 20 July 2020, the landlord said it previously told the resident the turf would not be replaced. Further, it was not presently undertaking any inspections. It said this this information should be communicated to the resident again.
  11. Further internal correspondence took place between 23 July and 4 August 2021. During this correspondence the landlord twice referred to previous complaint notes confirming the lawn would be replaced. The correspondence shows the landlord ultimately decided it needed more information about the details of this agreement. This was on the basis images of the garden showed it had not been maintained.
  12. On 20 August 2020 the resident said she had given the same information several times. She included wording from the landlord’s email on 17 July 2020, which confirmed any defective areas of the garden would be repaired. This prompted the landlord to ask the resident for details of the 2019 agreement on 25 August 2020.
  13. The parties exchanged emails between 14 and 25 September 2020. The landlord offered the resident £100 in DIY vouchers to put towards gardening materials. This was on the basis it felt the lawn did not need a full replacement. The resident declined this offer and asked to be rehoused if the landlord would not reinstate the garden.
  14. On 3 November 2020, the resident said she had been waiting for more than a year and her children were unable to use the garden. As a result, the matter was urgent and warranted compensation from the landlord.
  15. On 19 November 2020 the landlord declined to amend its offer. The resident subsequently agreed to accept the vouchers and asked if the landlord could arrange to cut the lawn. The landlord responded the following day and said this was the resident’s responsibility.
  16. Between 25 November and 9 December 2020, the resident twice said her concerns should be treated as a complaint and allocated to a manager. The landlord replied that the resident was expected to maintain the grass and its voucher offer would stand.
  17. On 4 January 2021 the resident asked if the landlord could increase the level of compensation. This was on the basis the offer was not sufficient to rectify the garden and the resident was unable to complete the work herself. Soon afterwards, the landlord confirmed the vouchers represented a full and final settlement of the matter. This discussion took place outside of the landlord’s formal complaints process.
  18. Around 9 March 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman with her concerns. This Service subsequently asked the landlord to respond to her complaint.
  19. On 12 March 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage two. It asked her for written proof it had agreed to replace the turf, along with pictures showing the garden’s present condition. The resident responded the same day. She said she included the same pictures that were attached to her last email.
  20. On 18 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord the garden was measured in December 2019. She said she was told the lawn would be replaced in the new year. Her email was prompted by a further request for evidence from the landlord.
  21. On 12 April 2021 the resident notified the Ombudsman the landlord had not responded to her complaint. This service subsequently told the landlord to respond within five working days.
  22. The landlord updated the resident on 13 April 2021. It said the lawn may have suffered some damage during hot weather before the resident moved in. However, it would have made a full recovery with care and maintenance. Further, a compromise would have to be agreed because the landlord felt it was unreasonable to replace the turf after 18 months. The landlord said it would arrange to inspect the garden with a view to finding a solution.
  23. The landlord’s contractor inspected the garden on 15 April 2021. Its inspection report, from the following day, said the grass was in very poor condition and large weeds had been allowed to grow. This was attributed to poor maintenance, a lack of water and a lack of mowing. Quotes were provided to reseed and replace the lawn. Replacement was recommended as the most suitable option.
  24. The landlord issued a stage two response on 27 April 2021. It confirmed the landlord would replace the turf and said the replacement lawn would need the resident’s care and attention. A link was provided to a lawn care website. The landlord said its contractor would contact her in due course to arrange the works.
  25. On 4 May 2021 the resident said she was happy the turf would be replaced. However, she felt compensation was appropriate because her children were unable to use the garden. The landlord replied the same day and said it would chase the contractor for an update on the works. It said, as a charitable organisation, it only awarded compensation in the event of a “direct” financial loss.
  26. The landlord’s case timeline shows the lawn was replaced on 26 May 2021. It also shows the resident reported the garden was unusable on 6 July 2021. It said she reported the sloping garden was hazardous for her children because it was bumpy and uneven. This aspect of the landlord’s timeline appears to be contradicted by the below information from the resident.
  27. On 12 July 2021 the resident told the Ombudsman the works were complete. However, the situation was distressing and had negatively impacted the family’s mental health. This was because the garden was unusable from August 2019. As a result, the resident felt the landlord should award £2000 in compensation to recognise what went wrong.
  28. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021. It confirmed the works were completed on 26 May 2021. It said the lawn needed maintenance to stay healthy. Lawn care information was included with the letter, which confirmed the resident’s complaint had been closed.

Assessment and findings

  1. The timeline shows the situation was ongoing for around 21 months in total. This is based on the period between 2 September 2019 and 26 May 2021. It is recognised this was both distressing and inconvenient to the resident and her children. From the information seen, it is unclear whether the resident has separate concerns about the garden which remain ongoing.
  2. It also shows the landlord’s operations were impacted by the pandemic. This is evident from its correspondence on 20 July 2020. The Ombudsman calculated there were around eight months during the timeline when the landlord was unable to carry out inspections or general repairs. This calculation was based on the start and end dates of three national lockdowns.
  3. Though the resident’s comments have been consistent, no information was seen to show the landlord agreed to water the garden before the tenancy began. Nor was any seen to confirm the condition of the garden when the resident moved in. The Ombudsman cannot determine which party was responsible for the deterioration of the lawn. Instead, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and her subsequent complaint.
  4. The resident provided pictures of the garden at an early stage of the timeline. This suggests, from the point they were received, the landlord had all the information it needed to make a reasonable decision. The timeline shows there was a delay of around seven working days, between 4 and 15 October 2019, before the landlord raised a formal complaint. It is noted the resident twice said her concerns should be treated as a complaint during this time.
  5. Based on the information seen, 8 November 2019 is a key date in the timeline. The evidence shows by this point the landlord decided to replace the turf and had communicated its decision to the resident. The avoidable delay therefore begins around this time and runs until the completion of the works on 26 May 2021. This represents a period of around 18 months overall, of which eight months was deducted to adjust for the impact of the pandemic.
  6. As a result, the timeline shows, the landlord was responsible for an unreasonable delay of around ten months. It also shows there was sufficient time to complete the agreed works before the first lockdown was imposed. During the identified period, both the landlord’s response and its complaint handling prompted an unreasonable level of engagement from the resident.
  7. For example, the timeline suggests she repeatedly provided the same information while, in contrast, the landlord’s position changed several times. Its responses included advising the complaint was already resolved, asking for additional information, offering to repair defective sections of the garden, offering vouchers and finally completing the agreed repair.
  8. It also shows the resident was anxious to resolve the problem, which can be seen from her willingness to accept the landlord’s voucher offer in November 2020. As a result, she chased the landlord for updates and made a number of suggestions as to how the situation could be resolved. The wording of the resident’s correspondence confirms her frustration with her overall experience.
  9. Around November 2020 the landlord failed to respond to another two requests to treat the matter as a formal complaint. Ultimately, the resident approached the Ombudsman for help to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman’s intervention shows she was unable to progress her concerns appropriately through the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord’s correspondence suggests it dismissed her requests for compensation without identifying the full extent of its failures.
  10. Overall, the above identified failures represent maladministration on the landlord’s part. Given the length of the delay, the level of engagement required, and the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, the landlord should have reasonably considered compensation in this case to address what went wrong.
  11. Given the above, the Ombudsman will order compensation in line with instances where ‘a complainant repeatedly had to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement.’ This is a reasonable benchmark given the circumstances. The amount ordered will be based on the failures identified from the evidence provided.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the property’s rear garden.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was responsible for an avoidable delay of around ten months. It also changed its position several times prompting an unreasonable level of engagement from the resident.
  2. Prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention, the resident was prevented from progressing her concerns appropriately through the landlord’s formal complaints process. The landlord should have reasonably considered compensation given the circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation within four weeks to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure it raises formal complaints promptly and records outcomes clearly.
  2. The landlord to share this report with its relevant staff for training purposes.
  3. The landlord, if it hasn’t already, to respond in writing to the resident’s concerns from 6 July 2021.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and recommendations within four weeks.