Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Cambridge City Council (202307393)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307393

Cambridge City Council

18 December 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the condition of the garden.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom house with a garden. The house was built in 1963 and the resident has lived there since 1990. The resident is elderly and has cerebral palsy and mobility difficulties.
  2. The resident’s daughter has acted as her representative in relation to this complaint. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
  3. On 11 April 2023 the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord about the condition of her garden, specifically the quality of the lawn and waste material found underneath it. After chasing the matter further, the resident received a stage 1 response on 11 May 2023. This stated that garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility and, on inspection, there was no apparent problem with the lawn.
  4. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 12 May 2023, based on the delayed response and the landlord’s home visit which concluded the lawn was in good condition, as she did not agree.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 May 2023. It stated that it could not definitely be concluded that the material under the top soil was present when the resident moved in to the property. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in complaint handling and offered a free regular gardening service, which would involve grass cutting and hedge trimming.
  6. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. She wants the landlord to carry out landscaping of the garden to remove the waste material and improve the lawn.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about the condition of the garden

  1. In the resident’s complaint of 11 April 2023 she explained that, when attempting to complete work in the garden, she discovered bricks, builders rubble, broken glass, tiles and rusty nails beneath a thin layer of top soil. She believed this material was dumped and buried by the developers when the property was built many years ago.
  2. On 10 May 2023 the landlord attended the property to speak to the resident and inspect the garden. The resident raised concerns about this visit being unannounced. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 May 2023, it explained that the lawn appeared to be in excellent condition and the garden had stoney soil, which promotes water drainage. It stated there was no work for it to do as garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility. It also said there was no intention to cause any upset or distress by attending the property unannounced, but the housing officer was in the area and thought it a good idea to visit to find a resolution. The landlord said 24 hours notice would be provided in future.
  3. The landlord’s decision to attend the property was made with good intent, to address the issue as soon as possible. It was appropriate for it to inspect the garden given that the complaint was about its condition. It is understandable that the resident preferred notice to be given so her representative could be present, but the landlord’s aim was to assist her and there was no material detriment caused by the visit.
  4. The tenancy agreement supports the landlord’s position, as it states residents must keep their gardens neat and tidy and the resident is responsible for the maintenance of lawns, hedges and trees. While its decision was reasonable and based on fact, the landlord could have drawn the resident’s attention to this section of the tenancy agreement to promote her understanding. The stage 1 response was based on the landlord’ visual inspection, which was appropriate and demonstrated effort on its part to give the issue due consideration. As the resident had reported the presence of waste material such as bricks and rubble, it would have also been helpful for the landlord to comment on the presence (or absence) of this following the visit.
  5. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s response and stated on 11 May 2023 that the garden did not just have stones in the soil but bricks, glass and rubble. She invited the landlord to return to see these items under the lawn, which she said was a cause of soil degradation and a health and safety issue. She said the lawn may look fine at that moment but it was usually either waterlogged or dry and cracked. The landlord replied the following day, saying it noted the resident’s comments but it was satisfied with the condition of the lawn based on its inspection.
  6. Following the resident’s escalation request, when she said her desired outcome was the quality and condition of the top soil being rectified, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 May 2023. Regarding the housing officer’s visit on 10 May 2023, the landlord said the officer had been asked by management to attend the property as soon as possible as the complaint had not been dealt with in a timely manner. The landlord noted the resident was happy to show the officer into the garden, following identification and an explanation of the visit being provided. The visit was intended to speed up matters given the initial delay.
  7. The landlord said it did not dispute that the material was found in the garden but, as the resident’s tenancy started in 1990, it could not be concluded beyond doubt that it was present when she moved in. The landlord said, in recognition of the resident’s age and medical condition, it would offer a free gardening service. While this would not be comprehensive landscaping, it would be grass cutting, edging and strimming once every 4 weeks from April to October via the council’s gardening contractor.
  8. It was reasonable for the landlord to note that the resident had lived in the property for many years without issue and the source of the waste material could not conclusively be traced to the developers. The landlord has gone beyond its obligation by offering the resident a free gardening service. This showed it was focused on achieving a resolution with the resident, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair and putting things right. There is nothing further that would be expected from the landlord in this case and, on this basis, there was no maladministration in relation to how it handled reports of the condition of the garden.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email of 11 April 2023 and, instead, marked the complaint as resolved on its online portal on 14 April 2023, without taking any action. This prompted the resident to message via the portal on 30 April 2023 to say the matter was not resolved and she had received no response. The resident further chased the matter on 9 May 2023. This demonstrates that the resident expended time and trouble in chasing the complaint response.
  2. The landlord then provided a stage 1 response on 11 May 2023, 19 working days after the initial complaint. This is not in accordance with its policy which states that it should be within 10 working days. Despite this, there was no acknowledgement in the stage 1 response of the delays or the steps taken by the resident to pursue the matter with the landlord. This was inappropriate and represents a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The resident enquired about escalating her complaint on 12 May 2023 and chased again on 16 May 2023. The landlord responded on 17 May 2023 to say the complaint had been escalated but queried the reasons for the escalation and the resident’s desired outcome. She said she was not happy with the lack of response following her initial complaint and the housing officer’s unannounced visit on 10 May 2023.
  4. On 25 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident asking for a telephone number to have a conversation. The resident replied that she only wanted to communicate via email. The landlord’s request indicates that it was taking the complaint seriously and wanted the opportunity to fully understand the resident’s position, but it was the resident’s right to say that she preferred to communicate in writing. As a result, it was appropriate for the landlord to proceed with issuing the stage 2 response based on the information it had.
  5. The stage 2 response was issued on 26 May 2023, in line with the 10 working day timeframe specified in the landlord’s complaints policy. The stage 2 investigation was also conducted by a different person than at stage 1, again in accordance with the policy.
  6. In the response the landlord did ultimately apologise for the delay in responding at stage 1 and explained that there had been miscommunication about which officer was dealing with the complaint. It also offered £50 compensation in that regard. While this could have been done at stage 1, the landlord appropriately took the opportunity of the stage 2 complaint to fully review its handling of the matter and offer redress. The compensation offer was proportionate to address the 9 day delay, which was short in duration, had minimal impact on the resident, and did not impede the landlord’s response on the substantive issue. As a result, the landlord has made reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £50 already offered for its delay in providing a stage 1 response. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident.