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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202206961)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206961

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 February 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 its request for the removal of items in the communal garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat within a building. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In March 2013, the landlord gave retrospective permission for alterations made to communal garden to all residents of the building. Its letter said the permission included fencing, extension of patio areas for ground floor flats, trellis around patio area, planting flower beds, and use of water tap/hose. It said it had taken pictures of the garden and that permission must be sought for further changes.
  3. Following a visit to the building in June 2022, the landlord told the resident that she did not have the correct permission for alterations made to the garden. It said she had breached her tenancy agreement and asked her to remove items by 22 July 2022 or it would take further action. The resident raised her complaint on 6 July 2022. She asked the landlord to meet with her in person and said she could not be contacted by mobile phone during office hours and did not have voicemail facility. She said the nature of her complaint was about being accused of breaching her tenancy and a member of staff’s handling of the communal garden matter.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 July 2022. It said it could not meet with the resident in person because its offices were closed and it wrote to address a complaint about a member of staff. It found that its policy and procedure for items in communal gardens had been followed. It had reviewed a previous letter that gave permission for a fence and asked the resident to remove a stone border and paving installed beyond the fence. It asked the resident to contact it if she wanted a home visit.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2022 to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said she could only submit a summary of her complaint online and had asked the landlord to contact her to discuss her complaint. She said it did not do this and she did not have a fair opportunity to detail her complaint prior to its stage 1 response. She told it about a neighbour complaining about her fence. She said she felt the landlord and the neighbour had a “campaign” against her, unfairly targeting her and causing her unnecessary distress when she had written permission. She raised issues with its handling of matters and said:
    1. Another neighbour made alterations to the garden without seeking permission and the landlord took no action.
    2. It did not speak with her before sending her a letter in June 2022. She said being told she had breached her tenancy agreement and to remove items by 22 July 2022 caused her distress.
    3. It told her it had followed its policy and procedure but had not said what these were. She told it how it was upsetting that she had been asked to contact the person she complained about if she wanted a home visit.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 September 2022. It reassured the resident that its staff did not have any campaign against her. It said:
    1. It had a zero-tolerance approach to items in communal areas. This was due to health, safety, and fire risks. It was under pressure to ensure all communal areas were kept clear inside buildings and in communal gardens.
    2. It apologised if it made the resident feel anxious and distressed. This was not its intention and it had taken how the resident felt into account when making an offer of compensation.
    3. While historic permission may have been granted for items in communal areas, policies had changed following high profile fires in blocks of flats. To keep residents safe, all combustible items in communal areas needed to be removed.
    4. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said this was because its stage 1 response did not explain how its policy and procedure had been followed. It apologised if the resident was left feeling anxious or distressed and offered the resident £50 in compensation.
    5. It was not responding to service complaints raised about policies, trellis removal, extra fencing, extended patio areas and other issues. It said it would address these under a new complaint.
  7. On 23 March 2023 the landlord accepted the resident had permission for the style of fence installed but not for a stone border. It asked her to remove this by 28 April 2023. Following this, on 12 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it had granted her a temporary licence to keep the stone border as long as it was not added to, if there were issues that it would be removed with 7 days’ notice, and it would be removed when she permanently vacated the property.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter and its response. She asked this Service to consider her complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 23 August 2022 the resident raised further issues with the landlord, this included the neighbour’s behaviour, amongst other things. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it would deal with her service complaints separately. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s response in relation to this.
  2. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints procedure, applicable at that time, does allow for it to treat new information following its stage 1 response as a new complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s initial complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response from September 2022. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any further complaints as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service. This report will consider the complaint that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 2 September 2022. The landlord may wish to consider whether it appropriately responded to the resident’s further complaint if it has not done so already.

Request for the removal of items in the communal garden

  1. The tenancy agreement says a resident is allowed to make improvements, alterations and additions to the premises, provided they have the landlord’s written permission. It says the landlord will not withhold permission unreasonably but may make conditions to ensure the work is completed to a satisfactory standard. It explains how the landlord will consult with a resident before making changes in the way it manages or maintains its properties which are likely to have a substantial effect on a resident.
  2. The landlord’s safety in communal areas procedure from 13 June 2017 says it has a legal obligation to manage communal areas to ensure there are no obstructions that make it difficult for persons to get out of the building or for emergency services to enter. It says it will regularly conduct inspections and items found in the communal areas will be removed and disposed of after it had notified residents.
  3. On 6 March 2013 the landlord granted retrospective permission to the resident for alterations made in the garden. Despite the permission letter referring to a picture taken at that time, this Service has not been provided with this. However, the landlord’s decision to grant permission was in line with the tenancy agreement.
  4. Following a visit to the building in June 2022 the landlord told the resident that she had breached her tenancy agreement as she had made alterations to the garden without permission. The landlord said this despite its previous permission letter. This was not appropriate.
  5. It is noted that the landlord did not locate the permission letter until 7 July 2022 after it had told the resident, at least twice, that she had breached her tenancy agreement and to remove items by 22 July 2022. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s failure to identify it had granted permission earlier suggests its record keeping was not working effectively at that time. It is accepted that its contact about breaching the tenancy would have caused the resident some surprise and upset.
  6. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response from 27 July 2022 it said it had followed its policy and procedure for items in the communal garden. However, it failed to explain how this was the case, especially when it was aware that permission was previously granted. Here the landlord adjusted its approach in focusing on the stone border without explaining why this needed to be removed or providing evidence to show this did not form part of the permission from 2013. This was not appropriate.
  7. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord explained how it had a zero-tolerance approach to items in communal areas and said its policies had changed following high profile fires in blocks of flats. While the landlord’s comments are noted, its stage 2 response missed a further opportunity to explain how its policy meant the stone border had to be removed or whether it assessed this as a fire risk. While the landlord has obligations in relation to the fire safety of the building, its lack of explanation about why the stone border needed to be remove would have caused the resident confusion. This was not appropriate.
  8. Following the end of its internal complaints process the landlord told the resident to remove the stone border in March 2023. However, later in May 2023 it provided the resident with a temporary licence allowing for it to stay in place. The landlord’s position contradicts what it said within its stage 2 response about a fire risk. This was not appropriate.
  9. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord not speaking with her before issuing its stage 1 response. The evidence shows that the landlord spoke to the resident the day before she raised her complaint and noted that she would be raising a complaint (5 July 2022). Within her complaint the resident asked for a face to face meeting. The landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately explained how it could not do this as its offices were closed at that time. While it may have been disappointing for the resident to not have met with the landlord before it issued its stage 1 response, it did explain why and acted in line with its complaints procedure, as mentioned previously within this report.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s handling of items in the communal area was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration. It initially said the resident did not seek permission to make alterations to the garden. When it found permission had been granted it adjusted its approach and said there was no permission for the stone border. Its stage 2 response said the stone border needed to be removed due to fire safety risk. However, it later provided a temporary licence allowing it to remain in situ. The landlord repeatedly said its actions were in line with its policies but it failed to explain how this was the case. Its overall approach, from June 2022, would have caused the resident confusion and upset.
  11. Throughout her complaint the resident has said the landlord treated her differently. While there is no evidence to determine if this was the case, the landlord’s handling of the matter was not clear or consistent and it is understandable why this may have left the resident feeling it was treating her differently.
  12. The landlord missed opportunities to acknowledge its failings within its stage 2 response. While it acknowledged an element of distress caused to the resident in offering her £50 compensation, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified and the impact this would have had on the resident.
  13. When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered, alongside what the landlord has already offered and the circumstances of the case. A compensation offer of £300 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances.
  14. The resident has raised concerns about the terms of the licence from May 2023 and about removing items if she was to leave the property. It is noted that the licence is limited to the stone border. The retrospective permission letter is silent on the removal of items and there is no evidence to show the stone border was not in place around the time of the permission letter from 2013. In light of this, the landlord should consider how it can work with the resident to support her in the removal of the stone border given the failings identified within this report. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to consider this further.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its request for the removal of items in the communal garden.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and a copy of the apology should be provided to this Service.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of request to remove items in the communal garden. This amount includes the £50 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
    3. Contact the resident and explain the approach it will adopt in relation to the removal of the stone border, in light of the failings identified within this report. It should inform this Service of its decided approach.