Citizen Housing (202232117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232117

Citizen Housing

10 July 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for it to level the rear garden at the property.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy started in September 2018. The freehold is owned by the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord recorded the resident has health vulnerabilities.
3. The resident accepted the property in 2018 and was given a starter tenancy by the landlord. Following regular inspections by the landlord to assess the resident’s property and garden, the landlord considered tenancy conditions met and granted her an assured tenancy in September 2019.
4. On 10 March 2022 the resident reported an uneven rear garden path. Following the landlord’s initial inspection, it raised a job to improve the patio and paving on 25 March 2022. The landlord determined the concrete path and patio needed to be broken up and re-laid. The work started on 5 July 2022 and finished on 13 July 2022.
5. On or around the 11 October 2022 the resident reported that her mother had fallen in the garden. She considered this was due to the “dangerous and uneven ground” in the garden. The landlord inspected the resident’s concerns and determined no further work required. It informed the resident that garden maintenance was her responsibility, as set out in the conditions of her tenancy.
6. On 8 December 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint with the landlord. She said both her and her mother had fallen and injured themselves on the garden’s uneven surface. She considered the landlord had previously said it would resolve the issue but had not. She advised she was now having difficulties with her mobility following operations on her spine.
7. Following telephone conversations and a property inspection, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 December 2022. It informed the resident that the uneven areas were previously flowerbeds planted by a former resident. The grass had been like this since the resident’s tenancy began. It advised the resident garden maintenance was her responsibility. However, its complaint investigation identified poor communication by its maintenance team during the repair and awarded £100 compensation in recognition of this failure.
8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process (ICP) on 17 January 2023. She said the path and garden were not level and the drops were unsafe.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 14 February 2023. It said it was sorry the resident remained unhappy with its investigation but was satisfied with the work it had completed. It advised it was unable to complete any further garden maintenance work and reminded the resident this was her responsibility.
10. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She considered the landlord had made her promises to level her garden that it had not fulfilled. She described having falls and the uneven garden had affected her mental health. Her complaint became one we could consider on 18 July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The Ombudsman notes that although not raised as a specific complaint point, the resident’s correspondence said she and her mother had fallen due to the uneven garden. We do not doubt the resident’s comments.
12. However, while we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or been the cause of an accident. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
13. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s request for it to level the rear garden at the property

14. The terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement states the resident must keep any garden, drive, or pathway that forms part of the property well maintained and in good condition. It continues by saying it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure these areas are kept in a good state of repair and decoration.
15. The resident reported an uneven rear garden patio and walkway on 10 March 2022. There is evidence the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s concerns within 11 working days. While the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy is silent on the timescales it will attend a property to complete non-emergency repairs, our findings consider this response reasonable.
16. The landlord acknowledged it was responsible for ensuring the garden footpath was in a reasonable state of repair. While this appears contradictory to the tenancy agreement, it was reasonable that it raised a job on 25 March 2022. This demonstrated the landlord acting on the resident’s concerns and arranging to complete the necessary remedial work. The landlord says it reminded the resident of her responsibility to maintain other aspects of the garden.
17. However, the resident states while the landlord explained the work would take approximately 4 days, she received no communication for approximately 4 months to confirm when this would take place. She also described being unaware of an appointment on 5 July 2022 when the landlord attended the property to start the work. This did not demonstrate the landlord communicating effectively.
18. Furthermore, it is not disputed by the landlord that having started the repair on 5 July 2022, rubble from the old patio and path was due to be collected the next day. The landlord acknowledged its maintenance team failed to do this and failed to communicate the delay with the resident. The resident states, while affected by a back operation, she was unable to use her garden for 4 days due to the rubble. She said this affected her mental wellbeing.
19. While we do not doubt the residents comments, we are unable to establish legal liability or award damages. As advised earlier in this investigation, the resident is advised to seek independent legal advice on this matter.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award compensation in instances of service failure. When there has been a failure that has affected a resident for a short duration, the landlord will award compensation to recognise any avoidable distress and inconvenience. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to recognise its communication failures and offered £100 compensation. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
21. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said a member of the landlord’s staff had said the difference in height between the path and garden was “hazardous.” Furthermore, she believed the landlord’s operative’s comment that it would require “10 tonnes of top soil to level the garden” was its acknowledgement that further work was required.
22. There is evidence the landlord discussed the resident’s claims internally. It concluded that:
    1. It had inspected her concerns and was satisfied with the work it completed.
    2. Uneven sections of the garden were old flower beds dug by a former resident. These had returned to grass and been present since the start of the resident’s tenancy.
    3. The resident remained responsible for the maintenance of the garden and dips in the garden existed prior to it installing the new path.
    4. It had discussed the approximate amount of topsoil required to level the entire garden but at no time said it would do this work.
    5. It was satisfied the resident was reminded of her responsibilities.
23. Having experienced a change in health, it is understandable the resident would have been apprehensive on uneven surfaces. However, there is no evidence that the landlord made an agreement to undertake the additional work outside the of its repair obligations. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not reimburse the resident for topsoil she purchased on or around May 2023.
24. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes
25. The landlord has demonstrated visiting to inspect the resident’s garden when she raised concerns. It undertook work it was responsible for and reminded the resident of her responsibilities. Its complaint investigation identified communication failures during its repair process and awarded compensation. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy and the remedies guidance available to us.
26. Based on the evidence, we consider that the £100 compensation offered was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. At stage 1, a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on 1 April 2022.
28. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 8 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day and provided its stage 1 response on 20 December 2022. This was appropriate and within the 10 working day response timescale as set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
29. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 17 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 14 February 2022. This was appropriate and within the 20 working day response timescale as set out in the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
30. The landlord acknowledged a failure with its communication during work in the resident’s garden. It apologised for the identified failure where rubble had been left behind, ensured the failure was corrected, and awarded compensation to put things right.
31. While we note the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to provide her the outcome she desired, we have been unable to identify failures with its complaint handling. The landlord demonstrated completing its investigation and complaint responses in line with the timescales set out in its own complaint’s policy. This was appropriate and met the expectations of the Code.
32. Therefore, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

33. 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 matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to level the rear garden at the property.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

35. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £100 offered at stage 1 of its ICP if it has not already paid this.
36. If it has not already done so, the landlord is encouraged to ensure it has an up to date assessment of the resident’s health and support needs.