Sovereign Network Homes (202224354)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224354

Sovereign Network Homes

22 January 2024

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 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 is about the landlord’s response to maintenance responsibilities for the hedge at the front of the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property has 3-bedrooms and an exclusive garden. The tenancy started on 21 February 2022 and has no service charge payable.
4. The resident has vulnerabilities and a physical disability. The landlord is aware of the resident’s circumstances.
5. For the purposes of this investigation, the resident’s reports of slugs and snails have been referred to as pests. To avoid confusion, the area directly outside her and her neighbour’s property, which consists of bushes has been termed as a hedge.
6. On 31 May 2022, the resident called the landlord as the hedge which separates her and her neighbour’s property had become overgrown. The landlord returned her call on the same day. It agreed to bring back the hedge to a more manageable condition and would retrieve a quote from its contractors.
7. On the same day, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding the overgrown hedge. By the 10 June 2022 the hedge had been trimmed by the landlord’s contractors. Following this, both parties agreed to close the complaint on 13 June 2022 as the resident was happy with the works undertaken.
8. The resident called the landlord on 19 October 2022. She reported the hedge had overgrown unevenly and was catching and scratching her and others. She enquired if maintenance could be undertaken twice a year. The landlord made internal enquiries and liaised with its contractors if this was possible but discovered that its contractors did not carry out works at the resident’s address without prior approval. The landlord left a voicemail for the resident. The voicemail stated she was liable for the hedge at the front of the property. She called back to dispute this 2 days later. She advised it failed to respond and complained of the landlord’s delay in responding to her queries about the hedge. It received the complaint on 26 October 2022. The resident mentioned that she was told it was her responsibility to maintain the garden and there were pests.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2022. It explained that in May 2022 it had agreed a one-off hedge trimming, to return the hedge back to a manageable state. However, it had considered the hedge to have been a communal area which did not fall under its responsibilities. The hedge was shared between her and her neighbour. It encouraged her to discuss the maintenance of the hedge with her neighbour. It also acknowledged that there was a delay in responding to her queries from 21 October 2022. It offered her £30 in compensation for that delay in its response.
10. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on the same day its stage 1 complaint response was issued. She asked whether the landlord’s staff were legally qualified. If not, for it to have passed the complaint to its legal department to have interpreted the tenancy agreement. She disputed that the hedge was not in her private space. According to the resident anyone could have accessed the hedge area and in the documents, there was not a clause that said the communal areas were her responsibility. She and her neighbour shared a fence and maintained that together. She further added that she was disabled and did not want to maintain what she described as public areas.
11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 6 December 2022, informing her it would respond by 9 January 2023. At that point the resident responded saying she was upset that 4 months was approaching since she contacted it about the overgrown hedge. She said she had no alternative but to withhold rent as the landlord was failing to follow its contractual duty. She felt some of the terms used in its stage 1 complaint response were inaccurate. These were:
    1. bungalow
    2. front garden
    3. driveway

The resident wanted the use of these terms considered by the landlord.

12. The landlord responded to some of the resident’s queries on 8 December 2022 by email, prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It explained the following:
    1. the complaint handling staff had not received legal training but do read tenancy agreements
    2. it forwarded her concerns to its legal department
    3. mentioned her obligations to pay rent was not mitigated due to the complaint

The resident replied to this on the same day and repeated that the landlord had refused to carry out the work to the hedge as part of its obligations. She rejected hiring a professional. She reiterated being unhappy with the use of certain words. She also added that since she had complained, she was feeling more stressed and depressed. The overgrowth of the hedge triggered her security doorbell which was activating during the night. She was unable to put up Christmas decorations and the lack of works was putting her health and wellbeing at risk. The landlord confirmed its legal team would establish responsibility.

13. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 9 January 2023. It explained to the resident that following her contact on 19 October 2022 that it realised the hedge was not part of its responsibilities. The complaint handling team did not have legal qualifications but it had communicated with its internal solicitors. It referenced clauses from the tenancy agreement and said it expected she maintain her side of the hedge. It gave the example that the area outside her front door was communal, but she still needed to keep it clean. It further advised that if she was unhappy about its stance on the matter, to seek legal advice. It pointed out that it answered her initially query on 19 October 2022 in 2 days but failed to respond to her on 21 October 2022 until its stage 1 complaint response. It said for the additional time and trouble it revised its offer of compensation from £30 to £50 in total. This was offset against the arrears on her account.
14. The resident remained dissatisfied. She referred the matter to this Service on 11 January 2023. She said the overgrown hedge was unsightly and was concerned about pests in the area. And that she felt bullied by the landlord and pressured to maintain the hedge despite her having recently undergone surgery and was disabled. She later added that to put things right, she sought the following:
    1. maintenance of the hedge on a regular basis – 3 times a year
    2. increased compensation – £500 per month from her initial contact in October 2022 and until the issue was resolved
15. In an email of 22 June 2023 the resident informed this Service that she wanted further aspects investigated. This comprised of the following:
    1. how the landlord arrived at its statistical repair figures
    2. why the time allocated to repairs was 42 days
    3. the landlord’s involvement in projects and funds allocation
    4. the resident had reported broken window frames and wanted to know the cost of repairs billed to the landlord

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

16. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not consider complaints which have been made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Although the resident was unhappy about a number of concerns in her email of 22 June 2023, there is no evidence that these matters had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, this will not form part of this investigation.
17. The Ombudsman is not able to investigate issues that post date the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. Although, we can comment on whether the landlord had followed through on any agreements it might have made during its complaints process.
18. The resident had said that the overgrown hedge led to her health issues being exacerbated. The Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts. As such, is unable to establish legal liability for whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Additionally, this Service cannot calculate or award damages. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the personal health aspects of the complaint. These matters are perhaps suited for consideration by a court. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
19. Further to this, the Ombudsman cannot establish legal liability for area boundaries. These matters maybe more suited for consideration by a court. However, it will be assessed how the landlord handled reports of issues and its communication.

Policies and procedures

20. Section 3.12 of the tenancy agreement says that the resident is to keep the property in a reasonable and safe condition. This includes preventing infestation and condensation. In terms of pest infestation, the resident remains responsible for their eradication and notifying it of the steps taken.
21. Section 3.13 of the tenancy agreement says the resident must keep her garden tidy and free from weeds and rubbish and keep the paths in a clear and safe condition. Additionally, besides routine trimming and pruning the resident must not remove, alter, or replace any hedge, fence, wall, or tree at the property without written permission.
22. In section 3.14 of the tenancy agreement, it is further added that if the resident has access to a shared garden, she is jointly responsible for its maintenance along with the other residents who have similar access rights.
23. The landlord operates a compensation policy where it can award discretionary payments for factors such as time and trouble. Within this policy, it can offset any compensation awarded against arrears on the resident’s account.
24. In the landlord’s complaints policy, it says it operates a 2 stage process. All complaints and escalations requests are acknowledged in 5 working days. It endeavours to provide a response a stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2, 20 working days. It will keep the resident updated if these timescales are not met.

The landlord’s response to maintenance responsibilities for the hedge at the front of the property

25. The Ombudsman will not find maladministration or service failure for when the landlord had provided reasonable redress. The Ombudsman expects it to have done so within its internal complaints process. This encourages earlier resolution to complaints.
26. The resident’s complaint concerns the hedge overgrowing and impacting her. Initially, she did receive professional work carried out on the hedge in June 2022 by the landlord’s contractors. It later said the action to trim the hedge on that occasion was a gesture of goodwill. Despite it being a goodwill gesture, it was appropriate for it to have checked the quality of the work itself and to have the resident’s opinion. As both parties were satisfied with the works carried out, no further action was taken. This was fair and reasonable as at the time, all her concerns had been addressed. There is no evidence that it had been mutually agreed that it would continue to carry out regular maintenance of the hedge.
27. The same issue with the overgrown hedge had arisen. The resident re raised her concerns with the landlord on 19 October 2022. It came to light that the maintenance responsibilities were within the residents obligations. The resident disputed this stance. The landlord made clear in its complaint responses, what its obligations and responsibilities were. It provided the resident with the relevant paragraphs of the tenancy agreement to explain its reasoning for not providing further hedge maintenance. It clarified in its final response that section 3.13 of the tenancy agreement said the resident must keep her garden tidy and keep paths clear and safe. Additionally, the resident does not pay a service charge. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for it to have declined carrying out ongoing maintenance, as it had established it falls within the resident’s tenancy obligations. Given her known disabilities, it was also appropriate for it to have said to her that she hire professionals to complete maintenance on the hedge.
28. The resident had said to this Service that the landlord should have considered replacement of the hedge so there was little to no maintenance. As explained by it, she did not need to apply for permission to trim the hedge as this was considered routine. However as stated in the tenancy agreement, if she wanted to make alterations, she would have required permission. There is no evidence the resident proposed alterations to the hedge area, therefore we cannot comment the landlord failed to consider this.
29. The resident wanted to discuss maintenance responsibilities on 21 October 2022 after the landlord advising that the responsibility was the residents. As she had not received a response, she submitted a formal complaint on 26 October 2022. This was not responded to until its stage 1 complaint response of 29 November 2022. This would no doubt have been frustrating for the resident as she had no acknowledgment from it until 3 November 2022 where it requested, she send pictures. However, it was positive to see that the landlord had recognised this failing and awarded a total of £50. This demonstrated its willingness to put things right and identified learnings which included the delay and the time and trouble. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its compensation policy, factoring the impact on her.
30. Overall, it was clear from the evidence provided that the landlord acted in line with its relevant policies and procedures and explained its reasoning and decision making to the resident. The landlord’s stance on its obligations were communicated clearly and these were on the whole carried out in an appropriate manner. Where there was a service failure in responding to her queries of 21 October 2022, it recognised the delay and learnt there would have been an impact on her. The £50 compensation offered was fair in the circumstances of the complaint. As such, this Service makes a finding of reasonable redress, as the landlord made an offer which proportionately recognised the failings it exhibited.

The landlord’s complaint handling

31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 November 2022. This was 1 working day outside of its commitment to 5 working days where it will acknowledge complaints. It did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 29 November 2022. This was 18 working days since it acknowledged her complaint and 24 working days since she submitted her complaint. Although there was evidence that it said it would provide a response by 1 December 2022, it is not clear as to why this was the case. There was also commentary that the complaint was received by it on 16 November 2022, however there was conflicting evidence that this was the case. Its records showed that the resident completed its contact form online on 26 October 2022. It referring to receiving the resident’s complaint on 16 November 2022 would have caused confusion to her.
32. The delay in the landlord providing a response at stage 1 exceeded its 10 working days commitment. In its complaint responses, it made no reference to its complaint handling failures. It did not attribute the £30 initially awarded for complaint handling, albeit it was awarded for a delay in responding to the resident’s queries of 21 October 2022. However, this was prior to the complaint being logged and did not acknowledge the timeline of 26 October 2022 until 29 November 2022. This was not a recognised failure by the landlord and it had not identified any learnings, which was unfair to the resident and an order has been made to compensate for this failure.
33. Furthermore, the resident escalated her complaint on 29 November 2022, which was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. Yet it provided its stage 2 complaint response 26 working days later. There is evidence that on 6 December 2022, it communicated clearly that the stage 2 complaint response would be by 9 January 2023. In that instance, it was outside its commitment by 6 working days. As a result of the holiday period and that it informed her about the timescales it was fair in the circumstances.
34. When the resident submitted her complaint on 26 October 2022, she mentioned that due to the overgrown hedges, there were pests in the area. She said this was a hazard to her dog. Although the landlord had already mentioned to her that gardening was her responsibility, it overlooked a response to this in its internal complaints process. The tenancy agreement says that she is to prevent infestation and removal of pests, notifying it. Unlike its references to the responsibility of overgrown hedges, it made no reference to the relevant clause in the tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman expects for the landlord to have communicated clearly with her. No further evidence had been provided that it addressed this concern. This would have caused distress to the resident.
35. The landlord had the opportunity to provide her clarity on the steps to take regarding pests. Yet the resident was still questioning this when the complaint was referred to this Service. Although the pests were not inside her property, it was unreasonable for it to not have considered or assessed a response to this part of the complaint. Therefore, it was not able to assess the impact this had on her and her ability to maintain the hedge. The landlord’s delay impacted its ability to assess the risk to the resident and too much time has passed since then.
36. Due to the landlord’s complaint handling failures identified and the cumulative effect this would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling. The orders include additional compensation in respect of the lack of assessment to her reports of pests, its poor communication and timeliness and the landlord’s failure to address this in its final response.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to maintenance responsibilities for the hedge at the front of the property.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay a further £100 for the complaint handling failures and the distress and inconvenience this caused. This payment is to be made directly to the resident’s bank account.
40. Provide this Service evidence of compliance of the above orders.

Recommendation

41. If the landlord has not already done so, to update its records to reflect the resident’s current disabilities or vulnerabilities.