Sovereign Network Group (202430266)

Decision
Case ID	202430266
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure tenancy
Date	14 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a semi-detached house with a front and back garden. The landlord is aware the resident has vulnerabilities which may impact her ability to maintain her garden. The resident complained that she found it difficult to maintain her garden. She said she was unhappy with the support offered by the landlord, and she felt discriminated against due to her disabilities.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for garden maintenance support.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for garden maintenance support.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Garden maintenance

The landlord considered its vulnerability and reasonable adjustment policy and its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when responding to the resident’s request for garden maintenance support. The landlord regularly reviewed the case and maintained regular contact with the resident. The resident chose to decline the assisted gardening scheme offered, which was her right. The landlord continued to offer the assisted gardening scheme and considered the resident’s individual needs when responding to her gardening requests.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its 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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended the landlord continue to offer the resident the assisted gardening scheme and work with her to understand her resistance to a ‘clear and cut’ in the garden.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
March – May 2023	The resident told the landlord she couldn’t go into the garden, and it had “all gone to pot”. The landlord offered a visit, which the resident declined. Her MP then contacted the landlord to explain the resident was concerned by how overgrown the back garden was. The landlord then supported the resident to complete an application to its ‘assisted gardening scheme’. The resident cancelled a visit from the assisted gardening team, and the landlord told her it would not do any further gardening works unless the resident requested them.
September to November 2023	The landlord discussed the garden with several advocates for the resident (including the MP and local councillor). The landlord and councillor offered a joint home visit, which the resident declined.
31 January 2024	The MP reported the resident was still anxious about her overgrown garden. They asked if it was still possible to join the assisted gardening scheme.
February to March 2024	The landlord internally discussed additional support options and attempted to contact the resident to discuss.
12 April 2024	The resident refused garden assistance from contractors and said she wanted to discuss with the landlord before any work took place. She raised a complaint about the support offered by the landlord to maintain her garden.
15 April 2024	The landlord and resident discussed the garden. The resident said she had previously taken pride in the garden, but now it was a “mess”. She wanted the garden to be landscaped. The resident was very distressed, and a welfare concern was recorded. The resident said she could not use the garden, and it was too messy for the assisted gardening scheme. She said she felt had been discriminated under the Equality Act 2010.
24 April 2024	The landlord gave a stage 1 response. The landlord said it offered the gardening assistance scheme and had followed its process for approving additional gardening works. It acknowledged it could have communicated better.
17 May 2024	The landlord visited the resident, who repeated she wanted the garden landscaped. The landlord explained and reoffered the assistant gardening scheme and this decision was left with the resident. The landlord shared information about a managed move, which the resident did not want to explore.
June 2024	The resident told the landlord she had nearly fallen in her garden. The landlord told the resident it needed to attend to the property and ‘cut and clear’ the garden. It could not make any other garden works commitments until this was completed.
8 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint via her MP and directly over the phone. She wanted the garden to be restored to its previous condition, and she was concerned a ‘cut and clear’ would leave the ground uneven, which may affect her mobility.
25 July 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint as the resident has refused access to the assisted garden scheme in 2023 and 2024. The landlord said it offered a one-off gardening works to bring the garden back to maintainable standards and then the assisted gardening scheme. It said the resident declined this offer, but it was still available to her if she wished. It explained it raised potentially moving from her home as it wanted to ensure the resident was aware of all options.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service on 14 October 2024. She said she found the situation very distressing, and it was impacting her health. She wanted the garden to be landscaped and to be able to use it again.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for garden maintenance support.
Finding	No maladministration

According to the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for keeping the garden in a tidy and cultivated condition.
The landlord’s vulnerability and reasonable adjustment policy commits the landlord to:
1. recognise and respond to vulnerabilities
2. make reasonable adjustments where residents face disadvantage due to disability or vulnerability. These should be tailored to individual need.
3. consider case-by-case adjustments
4. record and monitor agreed adjustments.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord would be expected to assess the request for reasonableness and explore practical solutions.
The resident has said her garden was very important to her and it used to be in “pristine condition”. It is clear from the summary of events above that the landlord offered the resident access to its assisted gardening scheme and considered her vulnerabilities in the options it provided to her. The resident chose to decline the scheme in 2023 and 2024. This was her right. The landlord acted reasonably by continuing to offer access to the scheme and seeking to understand why she felt the service was not suitable.
The resident cancelled 2 visits from the assisted gardening contractors on 12 April and 10 May 2024. She said she wanted to discuss works with the landlord before garden maintenance took place. The landlord visited the resident and explained the assisted gardening scheme offered. This was reasonable.
The resident said she felt discriminated against in April 2024. The landlord asked her for examples of this discrimination so that it could investigate. It also reviewed its records. This was appropriate. The resident did not provide specific examples of discrimination. However, the landlord kept the offer of investigation open and asked that she share any examples.
In May 2024, the landlord reoffered the assisted gardening scheme and asked the resident to contact it if she wanted to take part. This was reasonable and respected that the resident had previously declined the service and visits from its contractors.
The landlord recognised the distress the resident felt and followed its vulnerability and safeguarding policies. The resident said she was worried about a risk of falling in her garden in June 2024. The landlord recorded these appropriately; however, it may have been beneficial for the landlord to consider if an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment was suitable at this point as its policy states it can do so.
The landlord responded appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident in her stage 2 escalation. It did not uphold her complaint because the resident had declined the garden works offered, this was reasonable, and the landlord took steps to understand the resident’s wishes.
The evidence shows that throughout 2023 and 2024 the landlord considered the resident’s individual needs when responding to her garden maintenance requests. The evidence shows the landlord proactively used different approaches to contact the resident and work with her on different issues.
The landlord continued to work with the resident and her MP after its internal complaints procedure was complete to try and resolve the issue. It monitored the case weekly in August 2024 and it agreed to undertake OT recommended actions in line with its policy.
The landlord continued to offer a ‘cut and clear’ to the garden so the resident could be included in the assisted gardening scheme. The resident said she did not want this service, and the landlord respected her wishes. This was appropriate when assessed against its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
2. The resident had complained about other issues and the landlord identified the garden complaint was a new issue. This was in line with the Code and its policy.
3. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint via telephone and responded within its policy.
4. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint via telephone and responded within its policy.