Two Rivers Housing (202438048)

Decision
Case ID	202438048
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Two Rivers Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

Between 2019 and 2023, the resident repeatedly reported problems with his garden, including a rotting timber retaining wall, unstable ground causing the patio to sink, and unsafe steps. These issues remained unresolved leading him to make a formal complaint in 2024. The resident has chronic arthritis, severe mobility problems, and mental health challenges.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden repairs.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Garden repairs

The landlord delayed agreed garden works for over a year, did not provide clear timescales, amended the scope of works without notifying the resident and left a trial pit insitu. The landlord was not able to evidence a risk assessment, or consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities within the works. Communication and record keeping were poor, and the compensation offered did not reflect the impact of these failings.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses within its policy timescales and addressed all the issues raised. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000, made up as follows: £500 previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response on 16 February 2025 (if not already paid). An additional £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures identified in relation to its response to his garden repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that it completes this inspection by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The inspection should confirm: Whether the retaining wall and sub-base are structurally sound. Whether the surface finish (gravel) is safe and suitable for a mobility-impaired resident. Whether steps, handrails, and fencing meet safety and accessibility standards. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a plain-English report including photos. Highlighting the result of the inspection and a plan of action with timescales to resolve any identified issues.	No later than 15 January 2026
4	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure that any works identified within its surveyor’s report ordered above are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure it completed the works and provide supporting evidence. The landlord must confirm that it has recorded and will consider the resident’s specific mobility and relevant medical needs in all future works, including ensuring safe surfaces, accessible steps, and appropriate handrails.	No later than 13 February 2026
5	Communication order The landlord must: Maintain a single point of contact for the resident until it has completed any identified works. Confirm how often it will update him on the progress of works. Share a written action plan with the resident, including dates for inspection and any remedial works.	No later than 15 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord should embed a process to identify and record vulnerability needs at the start of any complaint or major repair and ensure these are reflected in works specification and risk assessments.
The landlord should review its record-keeping processes to ensure accurate, up-to-date logs of repairs, and vulnerability flags are maintained, accessible and considered by all relevant teams.
The landlord should implement a clear process for proactive communication, including assigning a single point of contact for complex cases and ensuring residents receive prompt updates, particularly when delays occur or staff changes impact continuity.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 2013 to 2023	The resident first raised concerns about the garden as far back as 2013, reporting a rotting timber retaining wall and concerns about safety risks. Over the years, he chased repairs repeatedly, including emails in 2018 and 2020. He said works were either delayed or completed to a poor standard. By 2023, he continued to report subsidence concerns, cracks, and dropping garden levels.
17 February 2024	The resident made a complaint. He complained about many unresolved issues including the deteriorating retaining wall, unsafe steps, and subsidence concerns. He wanted the landlord to resolve the issues just like it resolved his neighbour’s garden works.
20 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint, listing key points: ongoing repair issues for 8 years, poor handling of structural concerns, and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
4 March 2024	The landlord upheld the complaint. It promised to rebuild the retaining walls with proper footings, level the garden, and arrange a structural engineer visit. It apologised and said it would complete the same retaining wall repairs it had done for his neighbour.
10 August 2024	The resident contacted the landlord again to raise another complaint about the garden repairs. He said he had not had any communication regarding the proposed garden repairs. He expressed frustration at delays and lack of updates. He wanted the landlord to complete the garden works. He also raised issues around the landlord discriminating against him by completing the neighbour’s garden works to a different standard than his own.
2 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, upholding the complaint. It acknowledged that it had not made any progress on the agreed garden works since the earlier complaint and apologised for the lack of communication from its Property Services team. It committed to prioritising trial pits to assess the extent of remedial works and consider the resident’s preferences for garden layout. It also confirmed a follow-up visit with a surveyor and promised to consult with senior managers to improve communication. During a phone call on the same day, the landlord offered £300 compensation, which the resident believed related to his reports of discrimination, and said it would review the level of compensation at the upcoming visit.
7 May 2025	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy about the lack of communication, delays, and lack of progress of the garden works.
9 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, partially upholding the complaint. It apologised for prolonged delays and inconsistent communication, stated there was no evidence of discrimination, and acknowledged service failures in progressing garden repairs. The agreed works included: building a full-length step outside the patio door; installing a new path from the house to the steps; digging a channel along the wall, removing old structures, backfilling with gravel and compacting; reinstating gravel; installing a wooden fence along the top of the retaining wall; removing and reforming the lower garden steps to full width; and fitting handrails on both sides of the steps. It scheduled the works to start week beginning 30 June 2025 and expected to last up to 4 weeks, it provided a named contact and said the resident could also contact the tenant liaison officer for further support. It said there was no evidence it had discriminated against the resident and again apologised for any unintended hurt it caused. It increased its compensation offer from £300 to £500 to reflect the prolonged time to complete the repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his garden repairs, the complaint process and the compensation offered. He wants the landlord to complete the agreed works to the promised standard, improve communication and offer increased compensation.

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 response to the resident’s reports about garden repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not consider

We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about the resident’s reports of discrimination is better dealt with by the courts. The courts have better procedures to decide if the behaviour complained of amounts to discrimination. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the resident’s complaint about reports of discrimination.
Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said that he has been reporting issues with his garden for over 10 years. He raised a formal complaint in February 2024. However, there is no evidence he raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence that the landlord prevented him from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we have only considered the landlord’s actions in relation to the reports of garden repairs during the 12 months leading up to the resident raising the complaint, and from the date of the complaint onwards. References to earlier reports are just for background information.

What we have considered

The landlord has not disputed that the resident reported concerns about the garden, including a deteriorating timber retaining wall, unstable ground, and unsafe steps. These issues fall under the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the structure and exterior of the property in accordance with the tenancy agreement, and its own repairs policy.
The landlord’s record shows that the landlord was aware of these concerns well before the complaint in February 2024. In March 2023, it arranged a structural inspection and later a geotechnical desk study, which identified that the patio settlement was linked to failed timber retaining elements and poor sub-base fill. The report recommended trial pits and full excavation and compaction of the sub-base. Despite this, the landlord did not progress remedial works promptly.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should complete routine repairs within 30 working days and planned works within 60 working days. While the complexity of the works meant the landlord correctly treated them as planned repairs, the landlord did not provide any clear timescale or explanation for the delay. By the time the resident complained in February 2024, no works had started, which was significantly outside the landlord’s own time limits.
In its stage 1 response on 4 March 2024, the landlord upheld the complaint and confirmed that it would rebuild the retaining walls with appropriate footings and address the garden levels. This was an appropriate response. However, the landlord did not follow through on these commitments. There is no evidence that it provided updates or scheduled works in the months following this response. This lack of progress and poor communication was unreasonable and likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. This lack of follow-up breached the Code’s requirement for clear communication and complaint ownership.
The landlord offered £300 compensation at stage 1 of its complaints process. The resident understood this to relate to his reports of discrimination, but the landlord did not clarify its basis. The landlord did not link the offer to the delays in completing repairs and did not reflect the seriousness of the failings. This lack of clarity was a further failing in communication.
The resident raised the garden repairs issues in another complaint in August 2024. The landlord opened a second stage 1 complaint and again upheld the complaint, promising to prioritise trial pits. The landlord dug a trial pit on 3 September 2024 and covered this by a temporary board for several weeks. The resident fell on 11 September 2024, sustaining injuries. The landlord confirmed that no risk assessment was available for this work. Not completing a risk assessment and not considering the resident’s vulnerabilities was a serious failing.
The landlord refilled the pit on 10 October 2024, but progress stalled again. The resident continued to chase updates, and the landlord acknowledged poor communication and record keeping. Examples include repeated emails from the resident asking for updates, unanswered calls, and confusion among staff about what had been authorised. In March 2025, a senior manager admitted difficulty finding information because staff had left or were on long-term sick leave. This demonstrates significant record-keeping failures.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had not discriminated against the resident. It said the works to rectify the garden took longer than expected. It said this was a service failure rather than an act of discrimination. It apologised to the resident for making him feel it discriminated against him. It was reasonable of the landlord to consider the resident’s reports of discrimination and apologise for any causing any unintended distress as part of their complaint handling.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for delays in completing the garden works, and scheduled works for 30 June 2025. It offered an added £200 compensation increasing its total offer to £500. While the landlord completed some works in July 2025, including new steps, a patio door threshold step, and safety rails, the landlord appears to have reduced the scope from earlier commitments. It did not rebuild the block retaining wall or fully excavate and relay the sub-base as previously indicated. The landlord did not explain why it reduced the scope or how it considered the resident’s mobility needs, despite its engineer advising against gravel.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that awards should reflect the severity and impact of failings. Our remedies guidance suggests higher awards where there are severe failings, prolonged delays, and vulnerability considerations. In this case, the resident experienced delays of over 2 years, poor communication, and a serious safety incident. The landlord did not take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account when prioritising the works or ensuring safety during the garden works. This was particularly important given the resident’s chronic arthritis and severe mobility issues, which increased the impact of delays and the risk posed by uneven surfaces and steps. The £500 offered was not proportionate to these failings.
In summary, the landlord failed to complete repairs within its own timescales, did not keep the resident informed, and did not manage safety appropriately during the garden works. It also failed to provide a clear rationale for reducing the scope of works.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s garden repairs. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £500 in compensation. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and is consistent with the landlord’s own compensation policy, which states that awards should consider any vulnerabilities, as well as the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving failures that have had a detrimental effect on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation. This aligns with the Code.
The resident made his initial complaint on 17 February 2024 about delays in garden repairs and poor communication. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 March 2024 within its policy time limit.
The resident then made another complaint about the same issues on 10 August 2024. There is no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint prior to this date. The landlord’s complaints policy states if a resident is dissatisfied with its stage 1 response, they should escalate the complaint within 20 working days. It was therefore appropriate of the landlord to reopen a new complaint for the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response for this complaint on 2 September 2024, also within its complaints policy time limit.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 May 2025. After receiving the landlord’s acknowledgment letter, he expressed concerns about the stage 2 reviewer not being impartial. He said the reviewer had prior involvement in the case, and this was against the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to manage stage 2 investigations by an Assistant Director or Executive Director with no prior involvement. The landlord clarified that the stage 2 reviewer’s previous role was limited to authorising works in 2019 as a line manager and that he had no input into the scope of works or the stage 1 investigation. This historical operational involvement was remote in time and unrelated to the complaint process itself. On that basis, it does not amount to a breach of the landlord’s policy. It was reasonable of the landlord to address the resident’s concerns about impartiality and explain the stage 2 reviewer’s involvement in the case. It also reasonably recommended that the resident contact it if he had further concerns about this.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 June 2025 within its policy time limit of 20 working days.
In summary, the landlord responded within its policy timeline at all the stages of the complaint, it responded to all elements of the complaint and offered reassurance around impartiality. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that delays, and poor communication were not in line with its expected standards. It also appropriately appointed a main point of contact to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were inconsistent and incomplete. There was unclear documentation of authorised works, and difficulty finding information when staff were absent or left. These failings contributed to delays and confusion. Also, there is no evidence to show the landlord adequately recorded and considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Communication

The landlord missed multiple opportunities to keep the resident informed about progress, changes to scope, and timescales. Updates were often reactive and only provided after repeated chasing.