The Guinness Partnership Limited (202209839)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209839

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 August 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 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for remedial works to the garden.

Background

2. The property was handed from the developer to the landlord on 6 March 2020. The property was subject to a defects liability period which ended on 5 March 2021. The resident has occupied the property since March 2020 under an assured tenancy.
3. The resident contacted the landlord regarding the lack of work that had taken place following an inspection of the lawn in 2021. The landlord advised that the property was no longer within the default period. It advised that little could be done at that time of year due to the weather but if the resident made contact again post April it would arrange for its own surveyor to attend but no further hard landscaping would take place. A surveyor attended on 12 May 2022.
4. The resident contacted her MP on 16 June 2022 stating that she had serious physical and mental health issues and the garden was negatively impacting her health. She advised that she was unable to hang washing and her children could not play in the garden. The resident stated she would like decking and for the landlord to redo the grass including the weeds and levelling out. The MP forwarded this to the landlord on 20 June 2022 and requested an investigation take place.
5. The landlord responded to the MP on 24 June 2022. It confirmed the property was no longer in the default period when the resident reported the issues. It stated that it had attended the residents home and conducted an inspection, the inspection determined there were no repairs that were within the landlord’s obligations. It advised that the resident was responsible for keeping her private garden well-maintained and clean and this was noted within her tenancy agreement. The MP shared this response with the resident and she replied advising that she was aware the garden was her responsibility when she signed the lease but she did not expect it to get this bad and she could not manage it. The MP asked the landlord for the next steps and the landlord escalated it as a formal complaint.
6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 7 July 2022, it did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed that the developer had visited the property within the 12-month defect period and no issues were found or reported. It confirmed that the resident had received a care pack with instructions on how to maintain the lawn. It went on to say it had reviewed pictures of the lawn taken during the last survey in May 2022 and concluded that the care instructions had not been followed. It also stated that other properties within the vicinity which were built at the same time had not reported any such issues with their lawns.
7. The MP requested the complaint be escalated to stage two, on behalf of the resident. The landlord provided its stage two response on 20 July 2022, it did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed that the developer had been unable to make contact with the resident prior to the end of the formal defects period to sign off on any outstanding defects. It reiterated that following the survey on 12 May 2022 it found that while there was an obvious lack of grass, this was unlikely due to a developer defect as several other homes in the vicinity had lawns of the same specification and had not reported issues. It also, again, stated that the maintenance and upkeep of the garden were the resident’s responsibility as per the tenancy agreement.
8. The resident remains dissatisfied and as a way of resolution would like the garden redone and levelled out.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to complete remedial works to her private garden. This investigation has subsequently considered whether the landlord handled this matter appropriately, in line with the landlord’s process and obligations, and reasonably in light of the circumstance.
10. The property was subject to a defects liability period which ended on 5 March 2021. During this time the resident was able to bring any defects to the attention of the developer for them to be resolved. This Service has seen no evidence of any issues regarding the lawn being raised within the defects period. The landlord advised the resident that her complaint fell outside of the developer’s defect period and that no jobs were outstanding. The landlord also explained that at the end of the defects period the developer was unable to make contact with the resident to allow for a pre sign off inspection. It could have been beneficial for the developer to have written to the resident to advise that the defect period had ended.
11. Nevertheless, landlords are expected to conduct an appropriate investigation when repair complaints are made. In light of the issue falling outside of the defects period the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property so an investigation could be carried out. This allowed the landlord to establish what could be done to resolve the issue as a standard repair and was the appropriate action to take.
12. After said investigation the landlord concluded that the defects were a result of improper care and use by the resident. The landlord provided the resident with a clear explanation of its outcome. This was appropriate.
13. The landlord explained to the resident that it was her responsibility to manage and maintain her private garden area. It sign posted the resident to the relevant section of her tenancy agreement which states “You must keep your private garden area tidy by cutting grass regularly, keeping trees and shrubs neatly trimmed and maintaining any beds”. The agreement goes on to explain that “You must keep your private garden or yard up to an acceptable standard by keeping it free of rubbish and large household items, and by disposing of any animal waste appropriately every day”. The resident went on to acknowledge her awareness of this responsibility.
14. The landlord stated that the resident had been provided with a care pack detailing how to maintain the lawn when she moved into the property. It found that these instructions had not been followed by the resident which was the cause of the noted issues with the lawn. It was therefore fair that the landlord did not accept responsibility for the subsequent issues with the lawn.
15. This Service notes that in correspondence with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, the landlord offered to re-roll the lawn area. This shows that the landlord attempted to help resolve the issue for the resident even though it was not responsible for the defect. In light of this, and all of the above, this service cannot see that there was any maladministration with the landlord’s handling of matters.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for remedial works to the garden.