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

Haringey London Borough Council (202308897)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308897

Haringey London Borough Council

23 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 response to the resident’s request for:
    1. The pathway access to the back of the property to be cleared.
    2. The installation of a new boundary fence.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local council, which began in December 1990. The property is described as a 2-bedroom house with a front and rear garden.
  2. The resident raised a complaint through the landlord’s website on 13 February 2023 that the entrance to her back garden was not accessible. She said she did not previously have access to her garden through the rear, as a neighbour kept the gate locked for many years. She said the gate had been unlocked since they moved, but the pathway was being obstructed by small trees and garden waste. She asked the landlord to clear it by the end of May 2023 to allow easy access for the builders who would repair her fence in June 2023. The landlord responded on 3 March 2023 that it would arrange for its estate services team to clear the pathway.
  3. On 20 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to install a new fence to resolve a boundary issue. She also chased an update regarding the pathway clearance on 4 April 2023. The landlord responded on 5 and 6 April 2023 that it was waiting for feedback from the relevant teams regarding her request for a boundary fence. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 20 April 2023. She complained that the alleyway had still not been cleared and asked for an update on the installation of the boundary fence as new tenants had moved into the neighbouring property.
  4. On 25 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the pathway had been cleared. It said it would look into installing a gate to the alleyway to deter anti-social behaviour, dumping or encroachment issues. It assured her that it would advise further in due course. The resident told the landlord on 30 April 2023 that some work was carried out on the pathway, but there were mounds of soil and sharp tree stumps that needed to be removed. She said this continued to make access difficult. On 18 May 2023 the landlord said it had made a referral to its tree inspection team regarding the trees blocking the pathway.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 23 May 2023. It said the back garden access was cleared on 24 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in completing the works. Regarding her request for a new boundary fence, it said appointments had been scheduled for the works to be completed on 7 and 8 June 2023.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. The resident reminded the landlord in emails dated 24 May 2023 that the clearance of the garden pathway (including trees) had still not been completed. She escalated the complaint to this Service on 1 August 2023. She said the landlord had not responded to her request for the installation of a boundary fence and had only partially cleared the pathway.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident’s request for the pathway access to the back of the property to be cleared

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping the common parts of the building in good repair including the fences, and garden paths giving access to the property. The landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe to the resident’s request for the pathway to be cleared. She raised the request through its website as a formal complaint on 13 February 2023 and the landlord responded on 3 March 2023.It said it would liaise with the relevant teams to get this resolved. However, the landlord appeared not to understand the resident’s concerns and the resolution she was seeking. The resident said she previously did not have access to the back garden gate but as this had been resolved, she wanted the landlord to clear the pathway. The landlord responded that it would make arrangements to change the locks to the gates to allow access, after which the pathway would be cleared. This was not the resident’s request, but it delayed seeking clarification on this until 20 March 2023 (5 weeks after she raised the request). This was unreasonable.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 March 2023 and advised that it would visit the property to gain a better understanding of the issues she had raised. Though this was delayed, it shows that the landlord had learned from its error. However, the resident responded with more information and provided pictures to make things clearer. She explained that access to the gate was not a problem, but she wanted the landlord to clear the pathway. There were further delays as the landlord did not respond until 6 April 2023. Its response was prompted by a follow-on email from the resident on 4 April 2023. The landlord responded that it would ask its estate services to arrange clearance of the back alley, since it had established there were no access issues to the gate.
  3. The resident sent emails to the landlord on 12 and 17 April 2023 requesting updates on when the pathway would be cleared. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to her emails. The resident was left with no choice than to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 April 2023. The landlord had not managed its communication with the resident or her expectations regarding the pathway clearance effectively. She was concerned that the date for the repairs to her fence (an unrelated repair) was fast approaching and that this could be cancelled if there was no access to her back garden. This poor communication and lack of response would have caused the resident some frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  4. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the landlord sent an email to its contractors on 21 April 2023 and asked them to clear the pathway urgently. Although the landlord assured the resident that works had been completed on 24 April 2023, the resident remained dissatisfied and expressed further concerns on 30 April 2023. She said some parts of the pathway had been cleared, but they left mounds of soil and sharp tree stumps which made it difficult to access the path safely. It took another 2 weeks for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the works. It did not respond until the resident asked for an update on 18 May 2023. The landlord assured the resident the same day, that it had made a referral to its tree inspections team for consideration of the matter. It also assured her that it would follow up and provide an update. The landlord did not provide any further updates or address this outstanding concern in its final response on 23 May 2023. This would have caused the resident further frustration and distress.
  5. When the resident chased up a response on 24 May 2023, the landlord appeared to dismiss the resident’s concerns. It advised her that the images provided by the contractors showed that the pathway had been cleared. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to comment on the resident’s reports that the pathway was only partially cleared and that it remained obstructed with trees and rubble. The landlord said it was of the understanding that the issue had been resolved due to the email response from the waste company, but it had become clear that the issue was not resolved. It said it was waiting for the removal of the tree stumps and shrubs and further clearance obstructing the pathway. The landlord failed to acknowledge this throughout the complaints process, and it only accepted responsibility when the Ombudsman got involved. This is unreasonable.
  6. Overall, it is evident that the landlord did not listen actively to the resident or manage her expectations regarding the pathway clearance. The resident was not given an expected timeframe for the works, which meant that she incurred time and trouble in chasing up the request for approximately 9 weeks. If the landlord anticipated any delays in the works to the pathway being completed, it should have communicated this to the resident. Also, the landlord did not take the resident’s concerns seriously when she reported that the works had been partially done. This led to further inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing a resolution to the unresolved request. It should have inspected the works carried and failure to do so meant it missed an opportunity to put things right.
  7. As of the time of this report the resident said the path has still not been fully cleared. She said it was uneven and remains a safety concern due to soil and rubbish especially when it rained. This shows that the landlord had not learned from its errors and put things right for the resident. Based on the above there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the pathway access to the back of the property to be cleared.

The resident’s request for the installation of a new boundary fence.

  1. From the evidence provided by the landlord, the resident requested the installation of a new boundary fence on 20 March 2023. She said this would resolve any issues regarding access to her rear garden. The landlord and resident discussed her request and the possibility of a visit to better understand the issue. The resident provided pictures of the rear garden to the landlord and further explained that the installation of a new fence would prevent the neighbouring property from restricting access in future. On 5 April 2023 the landlord’s housing team confirmed that the information provided by the resident was helpful. As this was not a repair to an existing fence, it said it would liaise with the relevant teams to ascertain if a boundary fence could be installed and separate entrances created to prevent further access issues in the future. The resident followed up her request on 20 April 2023 through the escalation of her complaint. The landlord said it was still waiting for feedback in its email dated 25 April 2023 and assured her that it would update her accordingly.
  2. In its stage 2 response to the resident on 23 May 2023 the landlord said works had been scheduled for the boundary fence installation on 7 and 8 June 2023. However, the landlord’s repair records did not corroborate this. The records show that repairs would be carried out to the timber fence boards damaged due to a storm on the dates mentioned above. The resident escalated this matter to this Service on 1 August 2023. She said the works set out in its complaint response had nothing to do with the new boundary fence she had requested. The landlord acknowledged in its correspondence to this Service that it failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s request. It should have apologised to the resident and taken steps to put things right when it realised its error.
  3. The landlord’s housing team had previously clarified the issue raised by the resident and the resolution she was seeking. The landlord should have followed this up with the relevant teams internally and provided feedback to the resident about her request. Failure to do so meant that the resident’s expectations were not managed as she was provided misleading information when it stated that the fence would be installed. As of the date of this report the landlord has not provided a decision to the resident about her request for a new fence (raised on 20 March 2023). This would have caused her some frustration, time and trouble and inconvenience. Due to the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of a boundary fence. An order will be made to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the pathway access to the back of the property to be cleared.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of a new boundary fence.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out the following orders:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £400 broken down as:
      1. £200 for frustration and inconvenience in its response to the request for the clearance of the pathway.
      2. £200 for the time and trouble and inconvenience for its response to the request for the installation of a new boundary fence.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns regarding the:
      1. The clearance of the rear access pathway including the removal of tree stumps and soil.
      2. The request for a boundary fence and confirm whether this can be installed.
    2. It should respond in writing with a timeframe for any agreed actions where applicable. A copy of the response should be provided to this Service.