Town and Country Housing (202120197)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120197

Town and Country Housing

23 June 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

The complaint is about how the landlord has maintained the communal areas of the estate.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The resident has experienced ongoing issues over several years concerning the condition of communal areas, a neighbour using communal and parking areas to leave rubbish and store items, and the conduct of a landlord staff member.
On 29 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. She described the elements of her complaint as:
1. How she was treated by a landlord staff member 13 years ago regarding the cutting back of a bush.
2. She was informed during a meeting with the landlord that it was not the freeholder of the communal land and that it was maintained by a managing agent. The resident stated her dissatisfaction that she had not been made aware of this sooner.
3. The landlord had not done enough to remove the rubbish and items placed by the neighbour in a parking space.
A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 14 September 2021 The landlord informed the resident that:
1. Due to the time that had elapsed, that it would not consider elements of the complaint relating to what happened 13 years ago.
2. It was working with the managing agent to cut back the tree overhanging the car park, as the tree is on the land the managing agent is responsible for.
3. It had spoken with her neighbour, who had agreed to clear away the items from the communal area and understood that some of the items had already been moved.
4. It would write to the resident within five working days and provide the requested breakdown of the service charge. It was unable to do so at that point as it was waiting for information from its cleaning contractor.
Following an escalation request from the resident sent on 23 September 2021, the landlord provided a stage two response to the complaint on 5 October 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. It stood by its position set out in the stage one response that it would not investigate incidents that took place 13 years ago.
2. It was satisfied that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s queries and was keeping her updated. It explained that its service standards allow up to ten days for its staff members to provide a response to written communication.
3. It had met with a representative from the manging agent on 16 September 2021 to discuss the overhanging tree and would continue to work with the managing agent and resident to resolve the matter.
4. It apologised for incorrectly stating that some items had been removed by the neighbour in its stage one response. It understood that the items had now been removed.
5. It also apologised for the delay in providing the requested information relating to the service charge. The landlord noted that it had been informed by the resident that the communal areas do not seem to have been swept recently and contained weeds. In response, the landlord had arranged additional visits by its contractors to sweep the area and remove the weeds.
In an email to this Service sent on 14 January 2022, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
1. The landlord had refused to consider any elements of her complaint older than six months from when the complaint was raised.
2. The landlord had not done enough to clear the communal areas.
3. It was not acceptable that she was only made aware that the landlord did not own the land around the building in August 2021.
4. She and her family had experienced incidents of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from visitors to her neighbour’s property.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to receive an apology from the staff member involved in the incident that occurred 13 years ago and to receive suitable compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s estate management policy describes the service standards it expects its contractors to adhere to relating to the upkeep and maintenance of its properties and grounds.
This policy states that the landlord will ensure that “communal floors, walls, stairwells, lifts, light fittings, landlord cupboards, meter rooms, windows and window sills & ledges will be kept clean and clear”. That bin areas will be “swept and kept free from detritus, dirt, litter, bulk rubbish and fly-tipped items and bins emptied as per local authority arrangements”.
The policy goes on to state that grass, shrubs, hedges and flowerbeds will be “cut according to the season so not overgrown and free from weeds, free from leaves, litter and bulk rubbish and fly-tipped items”. In regard to fly-tipped items, the policy states that “fly-tipped items and bulk rubbish will be removed within 5 working days of being reported. Items considered as a potential health and safety risk will be removed within 24hrs of being reported”.
The policy states that the landlord will meet with its contractors on a monthly basis and grade the contractors on their performance on a quarterly basis. The policy notes that the landlord’s estate contract officers will complete formal estate inspections three to four times per year and that its neighbourhood housing managers will “carry out periodic ad hoc estate inspections to ensure contractor compliance”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will provide a response at stage one. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response.. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The complaint policy does not give timescales for when the landlord will respond to a complaint. However, the policy does state that it is in compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which is published on our website), The code states that landlord are expected to acknowledge a complaint within five working days, respond at the first stage of their internal complaint process within ten working days of receiving the complaint, and to respond at the second stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the resident asking for the complaint to be escalated.
As regards from what timeframe the landlord will consider a complaint, the policy states as follows:
1. “In order that complaints can be investigated effectively, all complaints should be submitted within six months of when the event occurred, or it became known to the complainant. Only in exceptional circumstances will a complaint be accepted outside this timescale and this is at the discretion of the Regional Operations Manager”

Scope of investigation

When raising her complaint, the resident referred to incidents that occurred 13 years ago. When bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident stated her dissatisfaction that these incidents had not been investigated by the landlord during its complaint process.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2021. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in August 2021.
When bringing the complaint to this service, one of the outstanding issues highlighted by the resident was that she had experienced incidents of ASB from visitors to her neighbour’s property. This issue was not raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaint process.
Before a matter can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the Landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding these matters. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.
In her correspondence with both the landlord and with Service, the resident has described the effect on her and her family’s health caused by the situation. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and that of her family, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim.
This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.

How the landlord has maintained the communal areas of the estate

During a meeting with the landlord on 26 August 2021, the resident highlighted the rubbish and vehicles that her neighbour had left in communal areas and their parking space. She also raised an issue with a tree overhanging her parking space. During the meeting the landlord agreed to talk with her neighbour. It also advised the resident that the tree was on land not owned by the landlord and it would provide her with the contact details for the managing agent for the land.
The landlord sent a follow-up email on 27 August 2021 where it informed the resident that the neighbour had agreed to move the kayak and trailer in the next two weeks and relocate the campervan within three months. It also provided a map to show which areas were under landlord ownership and which areas were privately owned.
Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately and in line with its policies in response to the resident’s complaint. Upon being informed by the resident of the rubbish and personal items in the communal areas, the landlord spoke to the neighbour and reached an agreement to have the items removed. It is noted that there was a delay in moving the kayak and trailer as a result of the neighbour going on holiday which resulted in the landlord incorrectly stating the items had been removed in the stage one response. However, the items were removed when the neighbour returned.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to explain what its responsibilities were relating to privately held land. However, as the issue concerned a tree over-hanging onto the landlord’s land, it was reasonable for the landlord to work with the managing agent and the resident to resolve the issue.
The landlord has provided this Service with its internal correspondence during the complaint process. This showed that when it was informed by the resident that the work done by the managing agent to cut back the tree was not sufficient, it contacted the managing agent to arrange a joint inspection to agree what further work was required to resolve the matter fully.
The resident has stated her dissatisfaction that she was unaware that the landlord did not own the land where the tree was growing. From the tenancy documents provided by the landlord, it is not clear that grounds ownership is explained to tenants. Although this lack of knowledge caused a short delay as the resident first brought the issue of the tree to the landlord rather than to the managing agent directly, this does not constitute service failure, as the landlord made the resident aware immediately of the ownership of the land and no evidence has been provided by either party which showed that the resident had highlighted any issues on the land not owned by the landlord prior to the meeting on 26 August 2021.
The resident also described her dissatisfaction with the condition of the estate grounds. During a telephone conversation discussing the stage two response, the resident informed the landlord that the communal areas did not appear to have been swept recently and weeds had not been removed.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord arranged for the contractor to visit the estate to undertake cleaning and weeding. It also arranged for an inspection to take place following the work and said that it would contact the resident once the work had been completed.
The landlord therefore followed its estate management policy by acting on the information provided by the resident to ensure that the contractor was adhering to its responsibilities to maintain the communal areas. It arranged for an extra visit and also arranged an inspection following the completion of the work in compliance with its estate management service standards.
From the evidence provided, it’s not clear if the landlord wrote to the resident following the inspection to inform her of the results. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord, if it had not done so already, write to the resident and provide this information.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it maintained the communal areas of the estate.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord, if it had not done so already, write to the resident and inform her of the results of its inspection following the work to clean the communal areas.