Wolverhampton City Council (202208141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208141

Wolverhampton City Council

02 February 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Requests for repairs.
2. Requests for tree maintenance.
3. A request to replace a boundary hedge with a fence.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling when considering the complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with her local authority, which commenced in 2016, and lives at the property with 3 children. The property is managed on behalf of the local authority by an arms length management company, who will be referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report. The resident and one of her children have a disability.
One of the properties neighbouring the resident’s home is privately owned. This neighbour will be referred to as ‘Neighbour A’ in this report.
On 18 June 2021, the resident told the landlord that a leak was coming from Neighbour A’s property onto the pathway in the back garden. She stated that the leak was green, slimy, and very slippery and expressed concern that it was a potential hazard to the health and safety of her children. The landlord’s internal comments on this report state it was not clear ‘where we stand’ as Neighbour A’s property was privately owned. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on the same day and decided no repairs were required as the leak was coming from Neighbour A’s property.
On 16 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for an update on the status of repairs to the leak in the garden. She explained she reported the leak every summer but no action had been taken to resolve it. She reiterated her concern about the impact the leak was having on her children as this was restricting their use and enjoyment of their garden. The landlord attempted to inspect the property on 20 July 2021 following this message.
On 25 August 2021, the landlord noted that a contractor had visited the resident’s property and reported that she wanted the boundary hedge between her garden and her neighbour’s (referred to as ‘Neighbour B’ in this report) removed and replaced with a fence. The contractor had told the landlord that Neighbour B did not want the hedge removed and therefore asked the landlord to mediate between the two, recommending that the hedge removal and fence erection take place on the same day due to Neighbour B’s dog.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord noted the resident had previously requested that a boundary hedge between her and Neighbour B was removed and replaced with a fence. Internal correspondence on this date shows the landlord believed it would be the resident’s responsibility to pay for removal of the hedge and for maintenance of the new fence. It agreed to contact the resident to make further enquiries about the fencing issue.
The landlord spoke with Neighbour B on 21 September 2021, who told the landlord that they agreed to the hedge being removed and replaced with a fence.
On 2 November 2021, one of the landlord’s housing officers told the landlord’s surveyor that the resident had refused to pay for the hedge removal due to having a limited income and because she believed it was Neighbour B’s responsibility as the hedge was in their garden. Internal correspondence from this date also states that the resident told the landlord that Neighbour B’s dog could gain access to her garden through holes in the hedge, that she was concerned about her children’s safety if they went in her garden, the resident and one of her children could not easily run away if the dog entered the garden due to their disabilities, and she would make a complaint as she felt it was unfair her children could not make use of the garden.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord made internal enquiries to see if the resident could be added to a programme for installing fencing in its properties. The officer responsible stated the programme was not due to commence works in the resident’s area and that it would not usually replace hedges with fencing, but an exception could be made in this case due to the resident’s disability and the reported issues with Neighbour B’s dog. Both the resident and Neighbour B would need to agree to the fence and both would need to pay a service charge of £1.93 per week before works could commence.
On 16 March 2022, the landlord noted that the resident had been in contact asking for an update on repairs to the leak in the garden as it had not yet been fixed. The resident reiterated the impact this was having on her children and asked for the issue to be dealt with urgently.
On 19 March 2022, the landlord noted the resident had made a formal complaint about the handling of repairs to the leak in her garden. 3 days later, the complaints team made internal inquiries into the handling of the leak and noted that an inspection carried out on 20 July 2021 had identified the leak as appearing to come from an outside toilet in Neighbour A’s property. The landlord’s surveyor told the complaints team that Neighbour A had been made aware of the issue and they were arranging for an independent plumber to fix this, agreeing to visit the resident’s property again to see whether the job had been done. On 23 March 2022, the landlord told the resident that Neighbour A was getting a plumber to fix the leak and that the landlord’s surveyor would arrange a further visit to investigate. On 30 March 2022, the landlord and resident agreed that the surveyor would visit the property again the following week.
On 12 April 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update on repairs, including works on the leak in her garden, and asked for repairs to the plasterwork in one of her bedrooms. 3 days later, the resident asked that her complaint be escalated and to be given information on the next steps she could take in her case.
The landlord created an order on its repairs systems on 19 April 2022 to repair the resident’s path and to replace her side gate, the frame of the gate, and repair the gates and frames for the outbuilding. It contacted the resident on the same day to apologise for the delay in its response, set out the list of works which it was going to do to the resident’s property, and explained that it would try and contact Neighbour A again about the leak. The landlord’s repairs log states that the job to repair the path and side gate was cancelled on 9 May 2022 as a different contractor was appointed with the job completed on 31 October 2022, and that the works to the outbuilding and side gate were completed on 27 July 2022.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord made internal enquiries about the outcome of inspections carried out and to find out when outstanding works to the resident’s property would be completed. The landlord established that works had been scheduled for the path, gate, and for the outbuilding but no action had been taken regarding the fencing as the resident had not agreed to pay towards the installation and upkeep of the fence.
On 20 May 2022, Neighbour A commissioned a plumber to prepare a report on the leak affecting the resident’s garden. The report stated that Neighbour A had blocked off their unused toilet and they believed the leak was coming from the resident’s property instead. The report was sent to the landlord on 24 May 2022.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property for the leak again on 24 May 2022. The repairs log states the landlord still suspected the leak was coming from Neighbour A, that Neighbour A’s down pipe and guttering may be contributing to the issue, and it did not believe the leak was coming from the resident’s property as her toilet was not near the site of the leak.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord asked another contractor to conduct a joint investigation with Neighbour A into the source of the leak. The contractor spoke with the resident and Neighbour A 2 days later and told the landlord there was a visible leak in the resident’s garden that appeared to be coming from Neighbour A’s outside toilet, although the contractor noted the toilet appeared to have been removed and the pipework capped above ground level. In correspondence with the landlord, the contractor explained that it wanted to quote Neighbour A for excavating around the outside toilet to investigate the leak and potentially capping the water supply to the toilet underground.
On 31 May 2022, the resident got in touch with her local MP about issues at her property with an overgrown tree, concerns about Neighbour B’s dog, and the safety of her children at the property. She explained that she felt her garden was unsafe to use due to concerns about Neighbour B’s dog getting through the hedge and that the overgrown tree was restricting light to her property as well as interfering with her satellite TV reception. She also explained that she felt the landlord had been rude and dismissive of her concerns. The MP got in touch with the landlord on the same day to relay the resident’s concerns.
On 8 June 2022, Neighbour A got in touch with the landlord to forward a thermal imaging survey they had commissioned. Neighbour A explained that an excavation was needed outside the resident’s property to investigate the leak and asked the landlord for permission to do this. Neighbour A also acknowledged that the leak could be originating from either their property or the resident’s and asked that an agreement be reached about who would pay for the investigatory work.
The landlord responded to the MP on 23 June 2022 and explained the following:
1. an officer had visited the resident’s property on 10 June 2022.
2. the officer inspected the hedge and did not believe that Neighbour B’s dog could get through it.
3. the landlord acknowledged that the hedge had been cut back and agreed to remove debris from this.
4. the tree in question was on a boundary line so not in the resident’s garden although it agreed to trim the tree back to allow the resident to maintain it in future and to remove debris from this work.
5. that it would discuss removing the hedge and replacing with a fence with Neighbour B.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord confirmed that both the resident and Neighbour B were willing to pay towards fencing. 3 days later, the landlord confirmed internally that the resident would be added to the fencing programme but this was primarily due to the resident having a disability and an issue with a dog.
On 20 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase an update on her complaint and made it clear that it concerned outstanding repairs to the back garden, that debris in her garden had not been collected by the landlord, tree maintenance work had not been carried out, and the leak in the garden had not been fixed. The resident told the landlord that Neighbour A had not had any contact with the landlord for some time about these issues.
New requests to replace the resident’s outhouse doors and doorframes as well as the side gate were raised on the landlord’s repairs systems on 21 and 28 July 2022. The landlord’s records state that these were completed on 24 August 2022.
On 7 August 2022, the resident again chased the landlord for an update on her complaint and on works to the tree and removal of debris, asking for her email to be forwarded to the complaints team. 3 days later, the complaints team got in touch with the resident and discussed the outstanding repairs. The complaints team asked for email correspondence with the resident to be checked as they were not aware of any open complaints. A day later, the resident forwarded proof that she had previously made a complaint.
On 15 August 2022, the resident chased the landlord to confirm it had received her proof of complaint and whether this had now been logged. The landlord responded a day later to confirm that a complaint had been logged and it would provide a response by 30 August 2022. It confirmed that issues with the washing line, paving, rear gate, tree affecting light, debris in back garden, and leak in the rear garden would be included in the complaint. The resident asked for her concerns regarding getting the hedge replaced with a fence to also be included, with the landlord confirming on the same day that they would be.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord arranged a joint visit to inspect the resident’s and Neighbour A’s properties and agreed to excavate on the resident’s side to locate the burst pipe to repair. A contractor attended on 23 August 2022 to carry out the inspection.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 30 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged it had not correctly handled requests for repairs to paving and a line post, works to the gate and outhouse doors, and to the leak in the garden. It stated it was not clear on whether it had an obligation to address the overgrown tree but it agreed to do the works regardless by 1 September 2022 and clear away any debris from this job. It also agreed to install a fence to replace the hedge. No compensation was awarded to the resident.
On the same day as the stage 1 response was issued, the landlord arranged for the outhouse door, side gate, outhouse toilet door and door frame to be painted. It also made internal enquiries as to whether debris from the hedge had been removed and agreed to remove debris from tree maintenance work once it was completed.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord’s contractor recommended that maintenance work was carried out to the tree in the resident’s garden. This work was due to be completed by the end of September 2022.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord told the resident that excavation work would be carried out to the resident’s property to determine the source of the leak in the garden.
On 6 September 2022, the resident told the landlord that contractors had not adequately covered her children’s belongings while carrying out work to the outhouse and that she believed the belongings would have to be replaced as her children had allergies and the dust would cause them breathing difficulties. She asked that she was refunded for the cost of replacing her children’s belongings. She also told the landlord that the back gate was faulty, and outstanding works had not been carried out. She asked the landlord for advice on how to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident forwarded photographs of the affected belongings to the landlord the following day.
On 14 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update following her submission of photographs of the affected belongings and request that her complaint was escalated. She also asked whether an issue she was experiencing with her driveway could be included in her complaint. The resident told the landlord that she had been promised a callback about 2 weeks ago to discuss the ongoing issues but she had not had any contact from the landlord.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord’s contractor confirmed they had attended the resident’s property and addressed the leak in the garden. Correspondence between the landlord and the contractor on 17 October 2022 states the contractor dug into Neighbour A’s property alongside the resident’s and found a pipe entering the building which was cut and capped, stopping the leak. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if the pipe was located on Neighbour A’s or the resident’s property.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint would be escalated and that the complaint was about paving and a line post, the leak in the rear garden, and fencing, with a response due by 31 October 2022.
On 6 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase works to the outside gates. An inspection was arranged for 24 October 2022 but the landlord’s records state that the resident refused to allow access to the contractor on that date.
Records from 28 October 2022 show the resident had been added to the fencing programme and works would start in the new financial year at the earliest due to high demand.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. The response considered the following points and offered £150 to the resident as a good will gesture:
1. Repairs to paving and line post. The landlord stated that the job had been planned to be completed by 7 August 2022 but this had not been met due to high demand and issues with the contractor. Repairs would now take place on 31 October 2022. The landlord accepted the resident should have been kept informed about the progress of works and it should have intervened at an earlier stage to make sure the works were completed. This point was upheld.
2. Tree maintenance. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in carrying out these works. This point was upheld.
3. Repair to leak in the rear garden. The landlord acknowledged delays to carrying out these works. It also acknowledged that it did not tell the resident when works were going to be carried out, despite the resident requesting an update on 14 September 2022. This point was upheld.
4. Repairs to gate and outhouse doors. The landlord stated that a lack of access and photographic evidence of the alleged poor quality repairs was a significant factor in its decision on this aspect, although it acknowledged that its contractors did not cover the resident’s belongings during the works and that this had caused them to become covered in dust and debris. This point was partially upheld.
5. Replacement of the boundary hedge with a fence. The landlord stated that this issue fell outside regular repairs and maintenance but that this work would be added to its fencing programme for the next financial year. This point was not upheld.
On 12 December 2022, the landlord inspected the resident’s property. The resident showed the landlord that repairs were required to damp and mould within her property and reported issues with the back gate. The landlord agreed to carry out repairs to the back gate and the landlord’s repairs logs show that these works were completed on 11 January 2023.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord told this Service that the resident had submitted a third party insurance claim in November 2022 for replacement of belongings damaged during works to the outhouse but the claim was currently on hold. It also told this Service that the resident had sent a letter before claim on 6 December 2022 using the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims, and it was currently working on agreeing a date for an independent surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The resident has since told this Service that she did not issue a housing conditions claim against her landlord following the letter before claim.
On 12 December 2023, the resident told this Service she had originally reported the leak in the garden in 2016 and it had taken over 7 years to resolve. The hedge had been replaced with fencing in May 2023. She stated that tree maintenance had taken place but it had now fully grown back and the same issues remained. She felt that lack of action by the landlord with regards to her initial complaint had let to high stress levels, wanting to move out, and that she felt she had been treated dismissively.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised the following point which was not mentioned in her initial complaint or request for escalation:
1. Weeds are growing through the resident’s driveway, which the resident believes is due to defective underlaying membrane which is supposed to suppress plant growth. The resident cannot tackle the weeds herself due to her disability.
This point is not linked to the substantive issues which have been brought to the attention of this Service. This Service has therefore decided that this issue is not within the scope of this investigation and that the resident should discuss her concerns with the landlord to give it a fair opportunity to respond and put things right. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaints handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that action has not been taken within a reasonable timescale. Although the Ombudsman has not investigated this point, we have therefore made a recommendation to the landlord at the end of this report to ensure that this issue is resolved.
The resident has stated that issues with the leak in her back garden have been going on for at least the last 7 years. The Ombudsman appreciates that although this may be a longstanding issue, this investigation has focussed on events after the request to repair the leak was made on 18 June 2021 as this is in line with the landlord’s own investigation.
The resident has also stated that she has suffered high stress levels because of the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs, tree maintenance, and fencing, which has affected the health and wellbeing of her and her children. Although this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments, we are unable to draw any conclusions in our investigation on whether the landlord’s actions or inaction has had an impact on health and wellbeing. However, we have considered general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the situation.

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs

The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will carry out routine repairs and all repairs covered by repair legislation within prescribed timescales. Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term in the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property (including drains, gutters and external pipes) in repair and keep in repair and proper working order installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating and for the provision of space heating. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also implies a term in the tenancy agreement that the property is fit for human habitation at the time of the tenancy being granted and throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. Both legal obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue; the landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable.
The resident was granted a garden along with her property as a benefit of her tenancy. There is an expectation that a landlord would not do anything that would substantially deprive the resident from the use and enjoyment of the garden or any other benefit granted as part of the tenancy.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that requests for repairs will allocated a category and responded to within the following timescales:
1. Fix It Emergency Gas Escape – within 2 hours.
2. Fire Safety Emergency – within 24 hours.
3. Fit It at your Convenience – within 20 calendar days.
4. Fix It Planned – within 90 calendar days.
Records show that the resident reported the leak in the garden on 18 June 2021 at the latest. The leak was eventually repaired on 23 September 2022, 462 days from the date of the resident’s report. It is not clear from the evidence by the landlord what repairs category, if any, was allocated to the leak, although evidence does show that the landlord attended on the same day as the report. It is concerning that no action was taken over the leak, despite the resident expressing concern that it was hazardous and prevented her use and enjoyment of the garden, and that the landlord’s decision not to take action was not passed onto the resident. This led the resident to make repeated contact with the landlord regarding the progress of repairs, with an update only being provided once the resident made a formal complaint. This contributed to delays in carrying out repairs, frustration for the resident as she did not know what steps were being taken, and a breakdown in the relationship between landlord and tenant.
The Ombudsman acknowledges it can be challenging for a landlord to address leaks when the source is unknown or coming from another property which is not under the landlord’s control, and that this can lead to unavoidable delays in carrying out successful repairs. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that landlords may be reluctant to carry out repairs when it is not clear if they are liable. However, neither of these points are a good reason for failing to take action on a leak or for delaying investigative work. As the leak was on the resident’s property, the landlord should have assumed that it fell under a repairing obligation as per section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 until proven otherwise. It is unclear why the landlord chose to not carry out an investigation or contact Neighbour A at an early stage, when the contractor reported that they suspected the leak came from Neighbour A’s property, and waited until after the resident made a formal complaint. This contributed to a significant and avoidable delay in identifying the cause of the leak and carrying out successful repairs.
It is also of concern that the landlord still took no action over the leak after Neighbour A made contact on 8 June 2022 and clearly agreed to cooperate with any investigation and excavation work which was required. This also contributed to delays in carrying out repairs.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported issues with the condition of her path, line post, gates, and outhouse. It is also unclear what category, if any, these repairs were given by the landlord. This Service has taken 19 April 2022 as the earliest date which these were reported, although it is also noted that the landlord’s evidence – an apology to the resident about delays in carrying out these works – indicates that it was likely these issues were reported before this date. It is of concern that works to the path and line post were completed on 31 October 2022, on the same day as the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued, which amounts to a delay of at least 195 days. Repairs to the outhouse door and door frame were noted as completed on 27 July 2022 despite another job being raised for these and works being fully competed on 11 January 2023, a delay of 267 days. These significant delays took place despite the resident requesting updates on the progress of works on several occasions and the landlord acknowledging a failure to carry out these works in a timely manner in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
The landlord failed to take prompt and effective action on reported repairs, failed to update the resident on the progress of works, and marked repairs as complete on its records when repairs had not been completed. This left the resident to chase the landlord for updates on the progress of repairs on several occasions, led to avoidable delays in completing repairs, and had a substantial detrimental impact on the ability of the resident and her children to use and enjoy the garden. Due to these failings, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs and has ordered the landlord to take steps to address the issues identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of requests for tree maintenance

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is the resident’s obligation to maintain any trees within the boundaries of the resident’s property. If one or more of the following conditions apply, the landlord will maintain the tree:
1. The tree is dangerous, dead, diseased, or causing a property to fall into disrepair.
2. The base of the tree, roots, or land in the immediate surroundings of the tree is visibly moving.
3. The tree has a large split in it or there are large holes at the base of the tree.
4. In emergencies, such as after storm damage.
5. The tree poses a risk to the public or community safety.
6. The tree is seriously affecting TV/Satellite/CCTV/communication.
7. The tree is severely restricting light or otherwise causing financial hardship.
8. The tree is in a communal garden.
Evidence provided to this Service shows that a request to address issues with the tree was made via the resident’s local MP on 31 May 2022. As the resident reported that the tree was restricting light to her property and affecting satellite reception, the landlord should have considered at this point whether it had an obligation to maintain the tree as per its policy. It is positive that the landlord agreed to carry out works to the tree at this point, but it did not consider whether it had an ongoing obligation to maintain the tree as per the resident’s tenancy agreement.
Evidence has been provided that the landlord’s contractor confirmed tree maintenance works were completed ‘slightly beyond the end of September’, despite the landlord committing to complete these works in its stage 1 complaint response. This Service has inferred that the first date which the work is likely to have been completed by is therefore 3 October 2022 as this is the first working day after the end of September 2022. This means that there was a delay of at least 126 days from the date which the issue was reported via the MP and the assumed date of completion of these works. Not completing the works within the timescales promised in the landlord’s complaint response is contrary to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, particularly to ‘put things right’. It is also of concern that there is no evidence why the works were completed at a later date or that the resident was updated about the progress of works along with any delays. Promising to do the works by a particular date would have raised her expectations and the failure to complete works by this date with no updates given to the resident would have further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. This delay would also have been frustrating for the resident, particularly as the landlord had confirmed that works would be carried out shortly after contact with the MP, and time consuming to chase.
Due to the failure to assess whether the landlord had a contractual obligation to maintain the tree, and the delay in carrying out agreed works, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handing of requests for tree maintenance.

The landlord’s handing of a request to replace a boundary hedge with a fence

The resident’s initial request to have the boundary hedge replaced with a fence was made on 25 August 2021. The request made it clear that a fence was being asked for due to concerns about Neighbour B’s dog entering the resident’s garden, that measures were needed to prevent this from happening, and that the resident was concerned that she and her children would be less able to cope if the dog did enter the garden due to their disability. The landlord agreed to the works on 18 July 2022, 328 days after the initial request and after the resident made her initial complaint, with works completed in May 2023. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord agreed to the works due to the resident’s disability and due to concerns about the neighbour’s dog.
The Ombudsman does not have the power to determine whether a landlord has unlawfully discriminated against a resident by breaching Equality Act 2010 – this is a decision which can only be made by a court or tribunal. However, the Ombudsman can determine whether a landlord has given due regard to its legal obligations under Equality Act 2010 when considering a resident’s complaint. Landlords may be able to show compliance with the 2010 Act by demonstrating the rationale behind their decisions and whether proper attention was paid to a resident’s protected characteristics, as well as keeping record of any unfavourable treatment which may be connected to a protected characteristic and why this treatment may be appropriate in context.
Although it is positive that the landlord agreed to carry out the works and acknowledged that the resident’s disability was a significant factor in its decision, the landlord did not fully consider its duties under Equality Act 2010 and whether any delays in carrying out these works could amount to a breach of these duties.
The resident had made it clear that her request was connected to her disability and that it was affecting her use and enjoyment of her garden – a benefit of the resident’s property. There was a significant delay from the date of the request to the date that the landlord agreed to carry out the works with no indication that other temporary measures were considered or put in place pending the completion of works. Although the resident’s disability was considered by the landlord when deciding whether to do the works, no evidence has been provided that her disability was considered beyond this point. This is a failure of the landlord to pay due regard to its legal obligations under the 2010 Act to make reasonable adjustments for persons with a disability in certain contexts, and to not treat persons with a disability unfavourably in such a way that prevents that person from making use of a benefit or facility of the property when managing premises.
The significant delay between the request, confirmation that the works would be carried out, and the completion of the works would have been frustrating and distressing for the resident.
No evidence has been provided that the landlord considered whether the situation posed any risk to the resident and whether it would be appropriate to put temporary measures in place to mitigate any risk. This is a failure of the landlord to take appropriate action pending the completion of the works.
Due to the landlord’s failure to pay due regard to its legal obligations under Equality Act 2010, its failure to assess and mitigate risk while waiting for the proposed works to be carried out, and for the significant delay between the date of the request, the landlord’s decision to do the works, and the date which the works were carried out, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request to replace the boundary hedge with fencing.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint states that complaints are defined as ‘[a]n expression of dissatisfaction or concern by a resident or applicant about the standard of service, conduct, actions or lack of actions by [the landlord].’
The policy sets out a two stage process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and full responses are given within 10 working days from the date that the complaint was received; if there are delays then the landlord will contact the complainant to give reasons for the delay and when to expect a full complaint response. A request to escalate a complaint should be made as soon as possible, preferably within 20 working days of the Stage 1 complaint response. Acknowledgement of a Stage 2 complaint will be made within 5 working days and a full response will be provided within 20 working days of receipt of the escalation request; if there are delays then the landlord will contact the complainant and let them know the reason for this and when to expect a full response, with any extension not exceeding a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord acknowledged the resident had made a complaint on 19 March 2022, although this Service has seen evidence that the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 3 November 2021 in a manner which falls within the definition of ‘complaint’ set out in its complaints policy. A Stage 1 response was provided on 30 August 2022, 112 working days from the date that the complaint was acknowledged and in breach of the landlord’s policy. This Service has not been provided with evidence that the resident was contacted about the delays in the landlord’s complaints response. This would have been frustrating for the resident, contributed to a breaking down in the landlord/tenant relationship, and failed to give the resident confidence that the landlord was taking her seriously and actively investigating her complaint.
In the absence of a Stage 1 response, the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to Stage 2 on 15 April 2022 and that she was given advice on what to do next. No evidence has been provided to this Service that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this request.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to Stage 2 again on 6 September 2022, 5 working days after the Stage 1 response was issued. No acknowledgement of the escalation request was given to the resident, leading her to ask again for escalation on 14 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged the request on 5 October 2022, 20 working days after the resident made the request, in breach of the landlord’s policy and not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s Stage 2 response on 31 October 2022 was in line with its response to the resident’s escalation request, but it was provided 38 working days from the date of the request with no explanation for the delay and exceeding the timescale set out in the landlord’s policy. These delays and the failure to keep the resident informed would have been frustrating for the resident and left her with little information on the status and progress of her complaint.
It is positive that the landlord checked with the resident about the scope and subject of her complaint both at Stage 1 and Stage 2. This allowed the landlord to gather more information from the resident about the issues she was dissatisfied with and to fully address these issues in its complaint responses.
The landlord’s Stage 1 response did address the resident’s complaint, but it did not acknowledge the significant delay in its response or offer any compensation despite it acknowledging that there were failings on the part of the landlord. The Stage 2 response also addressed the complaint but also did not acknowledge issues with its complaints handling at Stage 1 or the delay in the Stage 2 response. It is not clear why £150 compensation was offered as a good will gesture at Stage 2, rather than being offered in connection to complaint points that the landlord upheld in its response. Although it is positive that the landlord made an offer of compensation, the amount offered was not reasonable as it did not do enough to put things right given the facts of this case.
Due to the initial delay in the landlord’s initial acceptance of a complaint, significant delays in its complaint responses at Stage 1 and at Stage 2, and failing to inform the resident of delays in its complaint responses, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for tree maintenance.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to replace a boundary hedge with a fence.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord acted promptly when arranging inspection after reports of repairs, it did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the progress of works and closed jobs on the repairs logs before they were completed. It also delayed investigative work into the source of the garden leak and commencing works to repair it despite the resident’s neighbour making contact with the landlord and showing willingness to cooperate with the investigation and repairs. There was a substantial delay in replacing the boundary hedge with a fence after the landlord agreed to the works despite an implication that these works needed to be completed promptly (i.e. due to the resident’s disabilities and potential risk to her if her neighbour’s dog gained entry via the hedge). It also failed to pay due regard to the disabilities of the resident and her children and any ensuing duties it may have towards them under Equality Act 2010 when handling the repairs and replacement of the hedge with a fence. The landlord’s inaction has limited the resident’s use and enjoyment of an amenity to her property for a substantial period of time.
There were similar delays with the landlord’s handling of requests for tree maintenance.
The landlord failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s key dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes’ when handling the complaint. There were significant delays in responding to the resident during the complaints procedure and offers of redress were not adequate, taking account of the landlord’s cumulative failings over a prolonged period of time.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay £500 to the resident as compensation for its failure to effectively handle requests for repairs and ensure repairs were completed in a timely manner.
2. Pay £100 to the resident as compensation for its failure to promptly and effectively handle requests for tree maintenance and ensure works were completed in a timely manner.
3. Pay £300 to the resident for its failure to effectively handle the resident’s request for a boundary hedge to be replaced with a fence.
4. Pay £300 to the resident for the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s complaint.
5. This sum, a total of £1,200 must be paid in one lump sum less any compensation already paid to the resident in connection to this complaint. If the resident has not accepted the offer of £150 made at Stage 2, the landlord must offer this again to the resident.
6. Review the resident’s request for reimbursement of the cost of replacing personal items damaged by the landlord’s contractor, and write to the resident explaining what action it will take regarding this. A copy of this letter must be shared with this Service.
7. Provide the resident with a written apology from a head of service which outlines the learnings identified from this report and the steps the landlord are going to take to put things right. A copy of this letter must also be shared with this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Review its complaints handling process in this case and identify what actions it will take to prevent the issues identified in this case arising in future. A copy of this review must be shared with the resident and this Service.
2. Draft guidance for progressing repairs where the root cause of disrepair or poor housing conditions are suspected to be from a property or premises which are not under the landlord’s direct control. A copy of this guidance must be shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord should arrange an appointment with the resident to discuss her current concerns about her driveway and any steps it can take to address this issue.