From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Walsall Housing Group Limited (202318400)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318400

Walsall Housing Group Limited

19 March 2025


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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues within her back garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property, which is a house, with her 4 children since January 2023.
  2. On 21 February 2023, the resident told the landlord she had concerns about several issues in her back garden, which she said made it unsafe. The landlord said her housing officer would contact her to explain the process for reporting repairs. The housing officer attended on 27 February 2023.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 7 June 2023. She complained about issues with the fencing, footpath, trees, and rubbish left in her back garden from before she moved in. She said she had previously reported these issues.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 July 2023. It explained that it had arranged to remove the rubbish from her garden. In addition, it had arranged appointments to complete work to her footpath on 24 August 2023 and fence on 5 October 2023. The landlord apologised for its failures. It offered the resident a total of £125 for not being able to use her garden and for the delay in it repairing the fence.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 23 July 2023. She explained she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to only install partial 6ft fencing and the compensation offered. The resident asked the landlord for the health and safety assessment of her garden. She also requested compensation of £796.55 for 20% of her rent for the period she had been unable to use her garden.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023. It explained it was only responsible for maintaining fences it had previously provided. Therefore, it would not install 6ft fencing around the whole garden, as the resident wanted, because it does not provide upgrades on the fencing present. The landlord explained it had visited the property on 15 August 2023. While at the property, it had assessed the trees at the rear of the property. It confirmed that they were healthy and posed no immediate hazard. The landlord maintained its original offer of compensation.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation. She requested that the Service investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  2. The resident told the Service that there is still rubbish left in her back garden. The resident did not raise this as part of her stage 2 escalation. Therefore, the landlord was unaware that this was still an issue when providing its stage 2 response. If the resident remains dissatisfied that there is rubbish left in her back garden, she will need to raise this with the landlord as a new issue.

Policy and procedure

  1. The landlord’s void letting standards states that fencing will be in overall good condition and shall be repaired or replaced if necessary. Fencing at the rear of the property will be 1.8 meters high, 2 meters long. It also says that trees may be removed if diseased or damaged. The landlord’s lettable standard policy says that gardens will be free from rubbish and debris.
  2. The landlord’s compensation matrix explains that it will only consider lack of garden enjoyment between 1 May and 31 October. It will cap compensation for this at 5% of the weekly rent.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues within her back garden.

  1. The evidence shows that the resident first raised an issue with her back garden to the landlord’s CEO on 21 February 2023. The landlord arranged for a housing officer to contact the resident to signpost her to the correct process for reporting repairs. The landlord’s records show that a housing officer attended on 27 February 2023. They stated that they told the resident how to report further issues. We have not seen any evidence that the resident contacted the landlord about her back garden again until 7 June 2023.
  2. The resident’s complained in June 2023 about rubbish left in her back garden. She also complained about the condition of her fencing and path. In line with the landlord’s void and lettable standard policies, it should have removed any rubbish from the resident’s garden during the void period. It should have also repaired or replaced any damage to existing fencing and ensured paths were free of tripping hazards. There is no evidence that the landlord completed these checks as part of its condition survey prior to the resident’s tenancy in January 2023.
  3. Given the apparent lapse in its void standard process, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise that rubbish was left in the resident’s garden. It explained that it had removed some of the rubbish and it would arrange to remove the remaining rubbish. The evidence shows that the landlord completed this on 18 July 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this failing. It took reasonable steps to resolve this issue.
  4. The landlord in its stage 1 complaint response explained it had arranged an appointment for 24 August 2023 to repair the garden path. It said it would also clean the edges of the path to the side of the garden for safety reasons, despite this being the resident’s responsibility. The evidence shows that the landlord attended on 24 August 2023. Accordingly, its actions were appropriate, as it attended as agreed.
  5. The resident requested in her stage 2 escalation that the landlord inspect the trees and provide its health and safety assessment for them. The landlord in its stage 2 complaint response in August 2023 said that it attended on 15 August 2023. It explained that it assessed the trees at the rear of the property that day. It said that the trees were healthy and posed no immediate hazard.
  6. Nothing in the evidence suggests that the landlord is required to provide documented health and safety assessments for gardens to residents. If a resident raises a safety concern with trees in their garden, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to assess this. In this case, the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns by inspecting the trees. It has then confirmed that these are safe. The landlord’s actions were an appropriate and reasonable response to the resident’s concerns and in line with its obligations.
  7. The resident in her stage 2 escalation requested that the landlord install 6ft fencing to the entire left side of her property. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that it would only replace the damaged fencing at the rear with 6ft high panels. It would then install 3ft fencing along the remainder of the boundary. The resident told the Service that she considers the landlord has a duty under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to provide protection against intruders. She did not consider the fencing provided by the landlord met this obligation. She told us that there was previously 6ft fencing, as shown in photographs provided to us.
  8. It is not apparent if this information was given to the landlord. Nonetheless, while the fencing may have previously been different, the landlord was only obliged to repair it in its current state. Furthermore, the HHSRS refers to the property not the garden. Therefore, this would not place a requirement on the landlord to install 6ft fencing. The landlord’s decision to only install 6ft fencing at the rear of the property was in line with its policy. The evidence shows that the landlord completed the fencing work as agreed on 5 October 2023.
  9. In its complaint responses the landlord offered the resident £125 for loss of enjoyment of the garden and for the delay in repairing the fence. Its offer was broadly in line with its compensation policy for loss of garden enjoyment over the period May to the start of October. The landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation, which reflected the inconvenience caused.
  10. The evidence is clear that the resident believed her garden was not safe. The landlord treated her concerns seriously and took reasonable steps to acknowledge its shortcomings, apologise and put things right. This included site visits and repairs, which, along with its apology and compensation reasonably resolved the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her back garden.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £125 it offered in its complaint responses. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.