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

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited (202317613)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317613

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited

28 April 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:
    1. Remedial work to the resident’s garden.
    2. The resident’s request for her hedge to be replaced with fencing.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 6 January 2017. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 January 2023 to report a waterlogged garden. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 8 March 2023. Following the inspection, it confirmed it had found no issues with the drains or garden.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2023 as she was unhappy with the outcome of the visit/inspection. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 5 April 2023. Following the inspection, the landlord told the resident there were no remedial works needed.
  4. Following a further inspection, the landlord carried out some minor works to the resident’s garden on 7 July 2023. However, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 20 July 2023 as she was not happy with the quality or the time taken to complete the work. She also said she wanted a hedge removed but the landlord had given her conflicting information and advice.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. It acknowledged the time taken to undertake the work to the garden. It said the hedge was in a safe and satisfactory condition, so it would not remove the hedge or provide fencing. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays to the work in the garden. It also offered to remove the resident’s garden waste should she remove the hedge herself.
  6. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It confirmed the decision it made at stage 1. However, it increased the compensation offer to £70.99.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Remedial work to the resident’s garden

  1. Approximately 2 years prior to the resident contacting the landlord about her garden, a third party gas company had undertaken work to properties in the area. This meant that the resident’s garden had been excavated during the works. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the gas company had left paving slabs underneath the top soil in the resident’s garden. Although it would be reasonable to assume that was the case, given that the issues which led to the resident’s complaints only arose after the gas works had been completed.
  2. The resident reported an issue with her garden to the landlord on 25 January 2023. She said she thought the gas company had not put enough soil back in her garden following completion of the work. She said the lack of soil meant her garden was often waterlogged. The landlord responded and told the resident that the gas company would need to return to remedy the issue.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 January 2023. She said she had been in touch with the gas company but they said they would not address the issue unless the landlord could prove it was their fault. The resident said the gas work had been carried out approximately 2 years prior to her report. In response, the landlord raised an inspection request.
  4. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 8 March 2023 to complete the inspection. It is unclear from the evidence provided why it took over 5 weeks for the inspection to take place following the request. The landlord said it found no issues with the drains. It also said it could not see any problems with the small area of garden reported by the resident. Therefore, it did not raise any follow on work.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 March 2023 as she was unhappy with the outcome of the inspection. The landlord agreed to re-inspect the garden on 5 April 2023. Following the inspection, the landlord told the resident it would not be completing any remedial works. The resident asked the landlord if it could pave the garden area as it flooded with water from a neighbouring property. The landlord said it would not pave the garden as there was no evidence of flooding. However, it said it would look at the garden again after heavy rain. This was a reasonable course of action to take as part of its investigations.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 April 2023. She said her garden had flooded after heavy rain. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord arranged to inspect the garden as it said it would. The evidence shows the landlord did not respond to the resident until 9 May 2023, when it said it would visit that week. This delay to respond was unreasonable as the landlord had missed an opportunity to assess the resident’s garden in a waterlogged condition. Its lack of urgency was contrary to its previous commitment to investigate the issue specifically after heavy rain.
  7. The landlord completed the inspection on 16 May 2023. It said the garden was dry underfoot on the date of the visit. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided what work, if any, the landlord agreed to do.
  8. The landlord inspected the resident’s garden again on 26 May 2023 after further contact from the resident. It agreed to raise a job to remove some buried flag stones, add top soil and grass seed, and place 1 flag back down in an area of the garden measuring 2m x 0.3m. The landlord completed the work on 7 July 2023. This was 6 weeks from the date it agreed to complete the work, and outside of its timeframe of 21 days to carry out non-urgent repairs.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 July 2023 as she was unhappy with the work to her garden as the level was still the same. The resident said she wanted her garden building up to match the level of her path. The landlord told her it had completed the work to the required standard. As the resident disagreed, the landlord said it would send a surveyor out to post inspect the work. It carried out a post inspection on 19 July 2023 and confirmed there was no further work needed to the garden. Despite the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable of the landlord to base its decision not to complete any further work on the advice of its surveyor. This is because a landlord is entitled to rely on the observations and conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff.
  10. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 July 2023. She said the landlord had done some work to her garden but it had not solved the problem. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. It said it acknowledged the time taken to undertake the work and the impact this had on the resident. It said it had completed the work to a satisfactory standard and no further work was needed to the lawn. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 August 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the amount of compensation offered. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the top soil and grass seed she had purchased to the value of £20.99.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It confirmed the outcome of the stage 1 complaint. It said, it would reimburse the resident the amount of £20.99 she had spent on top soil and grass seed. This was in addition to the £50 compensation it had already offered for the delays in completing the work.
  13. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £70.99 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays in completing the work represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  14. Although there were delays in completing the first inspection and delays in completing the work once agreed, the landlord tried to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances. The offer amount was in line with what would be calculated using the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided. The landlord should therefore pay the overall compensation of £70.99 if it has not already done so.

The residents request for her hedge to be replaced with fencing

  1. The resident asked the landlord whether it would remove the boundary hedge between her garden and her neighbours garden and replace it with a fence. This was because the resident felt that hedge was in a poor condition. It is not clear from the evidence provided when she first contacted the landlord about this matter.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2023 to ask whether it had made a decision about her hedge. The landlord responded and told the resident during a telephone call that it would not remove the hedge as it was “fit for purpose”. It also said it would be an unreasonable expense to remove it and replace it with wooden fencing. However, it said she could request permission to do the work herself and it would consider her request. This advice was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement which says the resident agrees not to make any improvements, alterations or additions to her home without first obtaining the landlord’s written consent. The restrictions relating to improvements specifically include lopping, cutting down any tree or removing any hedge.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 June 2023, 29 June 2023, 10 July 2023, and 12 July 2023 to ask for a decision on the hedge. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 July 2023. It said it was a suitable boundary and it would not be undertaking any work to it. The resident suggested she could take the hedge out if the landlord agreed to remove the garden waste. The landlord refused her request. It told the resident her property may be in a conservation zone. This was because the conservation zones in the area had recently expanded. It said, if it was, she would need permission from the local conservation officer prior to removing the hedge. This was in addition to permission from the landlord.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on the same day. She said she had been in touch with the local authority and it had confirmed her property was not in a conservation area. The landlord told the resident not to remove the hedge without permission. It said if she did, it could re–charge her. This advice was in line with the tenancy agreement to some extent. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord explained to the resident how she could obtain permission to remove her hedge.
  5. The landlord visited the resident on 18 July 2023. It said it would give her permission to remove the hedge at her own cost. However, the evidence shows the resident said she wanted the landlord to complete the work at its own cost. The landlord told the resident it was unable to do the work.
  6. The evidence shows the contact between the landlord and resident, in relation to the hedge, was verbal only. The resident also met with various surveyors and spoke to different staff members, who gave differing information. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord had a formal process in place for obtaining permission to make improvements. However, had it followed a formal process, whereby it gave written permission or refusal, the resident would have been clear on the outcome of her request much earlier in the process.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2023 to raise a formal complaint. She said she wanted the hedge removed but she had been given conflicting advice. She asked the landlord if it would dispose of the hedge if she removed it. She said she had no means of taking it to the tip and the local authority had not emptied the garden bins. The landlord told the resident it would visit with a property surveyor the following week. However, the senior surveyor confirmed he had already told the resident it would not be doing any work to the hedge.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. It acknowledged the hedge looked to be in a poor condition in some areas. However, it said, overall, it was in a satisfactory and safe condition. It said it would not remove the hedge or provide fencing as an alternative. It said the resident could remove the fence at her own expense but she must maintain the small wire fence to the rear of the hedge. It said it would collect and dispose of the hedge if the resident chose to remove it.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 August 2023 as she did not think the hedge was a suitable garden boundary. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It confirmed the outcome given at stage 1. It said it would not usually remove hedging and replace it with fencing when the hedging was a suitable boundary.
  10. In summary, the landlord was entitled to refuse to remove the hedge, as the tenancy agreement expressly says it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden. However, the process of obtaining permission to make improvements was unclear. This led to a delayed and confusing process and the offer of a solution already suggested by the resident. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The evidence shows the resident tried to raise a formal complaint with the landlord on 9 May 2023 and 12 May 2023. However, the landlord did not log a formal complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will accept all complaints from residents unless they meet a listed exception. The policy goes on to say if the landlord decides not to accept a complaint, it will provide a detailed explanation. As the resident’s circumstances did not meet one of the listed exceptions, and as the landlord did not give a reason for its failure to log the complaint, it did not act in line with its policy. This was inappropriate as it caused delays in the resident getting resolution to her complaint.
  3. The landlord logged a formal complaint on 20 July 2023 following a further request from the resident. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 August 2023 to extend the timeframe for a response by a further 10 working days. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. This was 15 working days from the date the complaint was logged. This was within the extended timeframe of 20 working days.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 August 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. This was 21 days from the date of escalation and just outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy. However, in either response the landlord failed to acknowledge its initial delay in logging the resident’s complaint .
  5. In summary, there was a failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. It did not comply with its complaints policy when it delayed the logging of the resident’s initial complaint in May 2023. This delayed a resolution for the resident and caused her distress and inconvenience. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of remedial work to the resident’s garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for her hedge to be replaced with fencing.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £125. This is made up of:
      1. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her hedge to be replaced with fencing.
      2. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £70.99 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord consider implementing a process or procedure to deal with requests from residents to make improvements to their homes if it does not already have one in place.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendations.