Golding Homes Limited (202229689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229689

Golding Homes Limited

30 April 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 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 the resident’s reports of a neighbour fencing off and landscaping part of the communal garden.
2. The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first floor flat. She holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
4. There is a communal garden to the rear of the block of flats. The resident advised that her balcony is directly above this space.
5. Both the resident and her representative contacted the landlord throughout the complaint. For the purposes of this report, both parties will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
6. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 July 2022. She was dissatisfied that her neighbour who lived in the below flat had installed a 4-foot-high fence around part of the communal garden. The resident advised the neighbour used the space as a private garden. She did not receive a response from the landlord.
7. On 8 August 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
   1. There had previously been a wire fence in the communal garden with plants growing outside of the fenced area. The new fence encompassed all the plants and ran alongside the footpath.
   2. It had no records to suggest permission was granted for the neighbour’s use of the space.
   3. The issue stemmed from when the local authority was the landlord.
   4. It was due to contact the neighbour on 22 August 2022 and would provide the resident with a further update on 26 August 2022.
8. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 5 October 2022 and followed this up on 2 December 2022. She was dissatisfied with the lack of updates from the landlord and was unhappy that the fenced off area was directly below her balcony. She reported access issues for her windows to be cleaned. In addition, she said that wisteria planted by the neighbour reached her window and required cutting.
9. On 10 July 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
   1. The neighbour remained in disagreement with the landlord. They had not removed the fence or plants following a letter which requested this in December 2022.
   2. The landlord sought legal advice and issued a further letter to the neighbour. It requested for the fence to be removed within 4 weeks and plants to be taken out within 2 weeks.
   3. The resident chased the landlord for updates. It offered £100 for its poor communication and £50 for delays to escalate the complaint.
10. The landlord received a legal challenge from the neighbour’s solicitor on 13 July 2023.
11. The resident remains dissatisfied that the fence and wisteria remain in place. To resolve the complaint, she wants the wisteria to be cut and the fence to be removed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a neighbour fencing off and landscaping part of the communal garden.

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines that communal areas include grass, garden areas and paths throughout the locality. It also states that residents must use communal areas with due regard for the convenience and safety of others.
13. Records show that the resident first reported the fence installed by the neighbour on 11 July 2022. Further concerns were later raised about a wisteria tree the neighbour had planted which grew up to the resident’s window. She advised that it attracted wasps to her property which she had an allergy to. The landlord responded to the concerns by making enquiries with the neighbour, visiting the site, and inspecting photographs. It took proportionate steps within a timely manner to investigate the reports.
14. The landlord identified it needed to complete further investigations as the neighbour claimed they were granted permission to use the communal garden in this manner. It was reasonable for the landlord to clarify its position before taking action. The landlord updated the resident and advised it would contact her again on 26 August 2022 following a further visit with the neighbour. These steps were appropriate.
15. Records show that the landlord failed to provide an update to the resident in August 2022. The resident incurred time and trouble chasing for updates over the following months. The landlord’s ongoing lack of communication and failure to keep its commitment may have caused her frustration. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord said it experienced difficulties engaging with the neighbour which caused delays. If this was the case, it should have communicated this to the resident at the time. However, it is positive that the landlord acknowledged its poor communication in its complaint response. The £100 compensation offered by the landlord for the time and trouble incurred by the resident is considered proportionate for this failing.  
16. The landlord updated the resident on 20 October 2022 and reassured her that it was speaking with its legal advisors and dealing with the matter.
17. It was appropriate for the landlord to issue a letter to the neighbour on 9 December 2022 after it sought legal advice. It requested for them to remove the fence and revert the communal garden to how it had previously been within 2 months. It was positive that the landlord updated the resident on the same day the letter was issued and clarified the timeframe it provided the neighbour.
18. The neighbour remained in disagreement with the landlord about their use of the garden and did not remove the wisteria or fence within the designated timeframe. Records show that the landlord failed to take any further action after the letter was issued for a 7–month period. This delay was excessive and unreasonable. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have identified a course of action to take if the neighbour did not adhere to the letter by February 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that the next steps had been considered.
19. The landlord issued a second letter to the neighbour in July 2023. It provided them with 4 weeks’ notice to remove the fence, and 2 weeks’ notice to remove the additional plants (including the wisteria). It was appropriate that the landlord updated the resident on this. However, the Ombudsman considers that this could have been issued sooner, particularly as the letter contained similar content to the previous one.
20. The Ombudsman understands that the fence and wisteria remain in situ. It is concerning that since the letter was issued in July 2023, the landlord again delayed seeking legal advice and taking further action. It is noted that the landlord received a legal challenge from the neighbour’s solicitor which likely caused some delays. However, records suggest that it only sought legal advice to identify its next steps in March 2024. 
21. Following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident confirmed that the landlord’s communication improved and it currently provides weekly updates to her. However, she is dissatisfied with the lack of information provided in these updates. The Ombudsman notes that the matter has been ongoing for 20 months and the resident feels there has been a lack of clarity on the steps the landlord is taking. Although it is reasonable for the landlord to explain it was unable to disclose legal advice relating to the neighbour, it should set out its position to the resident during its weekly updates. Where it feels it is unable to expand on specific points it should explain why. 
22. The resident raised additional concerns that she was unable to have her windows cleaned due to access issues. She also reported that her neighbour complained about bird feed falling from the resident’s balcony into the fenced off area below which made their dog unwell. The resident wanted to know what her legal position was regarding the fenced off space under her balcony. Records show that the landlord failed to respond to this. The landlord is ordered to provide a response to the resident regarding her concerns.  
23. It is positive that the landlord evidenced some learning from the complaint. It advised in its final response that its tenancy services team would undergo a review to improve its capacity to respond to future estate management queries. This shows that the landlord is taking steps to improve its service.
24. Overall, although the landlord identified some learning from the complaint and offered a proportionate amount of compensation in relation to its communication, there were excessive and avoidable delays for the landlord to seek legal advice and take action over the resident’s concerns. In addition, the landlord’s communication resulted in the resident being unclear on what action the landlord was taking. This appears to be an ongoing issue.
25. The Ombudsman has therefore identified service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a neighbour fencing off and landscaping part of the communal garden. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to seek appropriate legal advice in a timely manner and act upon this without delay. The landlord should endeavour to update the resident on its next steps within 4 weeks.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

26. Records show that the landlord appropriately logged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a complaint is not resolved to the customer’s satisfaction at stage 1, they can request for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2. This will be reviewed by a senior manager and a response will be provided no later than 20 working days from escalation.
28. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 5 October 2022 during a phone call with the landlord. However, records show that this was not actioned. As she did not receive further communication about her complaint, the resident requested escalation for a second time on 2 December 2022. In response, the landlord apologised for its delay to respond to the complaint. However, it still failed to progress it to stage 2. This was unacceptable, particularly as the landlord acknowledged the delays.  
29. The landlord said it logged the complaint at stage 2 on 12 June 2023. It issued its final response on 10 July 2023, 9 months after the resident originally requested escalation of her complaint. This delay was significant and unacceptable.
30. Although the landlord acknowledged that it delayed escalating the complaint in its response, it did not highlight the extent of these delays, or the inconvenience this would have caused the resident.
31. In addition, as highlighted in paragraph 21, the landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. Although this did not cause a significant impact as it was not the main part of the complaint, the landlord should have responded to all the resident’s complaint points.
32. The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s £50 compensation proportionate to reflect a 9–month delay for the stage 2 response to be issued, or for the landlord’s failure to address all aspects of the complaint. The landlord did not evidence learning as a result of the identified failings. As such, the Ombudsman has identified maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
33. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £200 (inclusive of the £50 already offered).

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a neighbour fencing off and landscaping part of the communal garden.
    2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

35. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £300. This should be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £100 (if not already paid) as awarded through the landlord’s complaints process. This is to account for its poor communication with the resident in relation to the neighbour’s use of the communal garden.
    2. £200 for its delays to log and respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and failure to address all aspects of the complaint in its responses. This amount is inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord through its complaints process.
36. The landlord is ordered to act upon legal recommendations and endeavour to update the resident on its next steps within the next 4 weeks. Where the landlord feels it cannot expand on specific points, it should explain why.
37. The landlord is ordered to respond to the resident’s concerns and legal queries about her use of the fenced off communal space under her balcony.
38. The landlord is ordered to review its handling of the complaint in this case and reiterate the escalation process to its staff to prevent delays for future complaints.
39. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks from the date of this report.