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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202315094)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315094

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 October 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 concerns about the condition of the rear garden.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 2 bedroom house with a garden. The tenancy commenced in June 2022 and the resident lives at the property with her 2 daughters who were aged 9 and 13 at the time of the complaint.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 July 2023. She said the previous tenant had removed the paving slabs from the garden leaving a bare concrete slab which was causing dust to enter the property. She was also concerned that the dust was causing her family to cough. She wanted the landlord to carry out works to improve the condition of the garden as she could not afford to organise it herself.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 July 2023. It said the resident had accepted the property as seen and the responsibility for maintaining the garden fell to the resident. It suggested she could contact its foundation to seek assistance if she was having financial difficulties.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint on 9 July 2023. She told the landlord she thought the garden was a health hazard because of the dust and that she wasn’t able to organise it herself. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 25 July 2023 reiterating its position from the stage 1 response that it would not be completing any works to the garden.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the matter to this Service on 27 July 2023. In doing so, she wanted the landlord to complete works to the garden.
  6. It is relevant to note the resident has informed us that, since referring the matter to this Service, she has paid £370 to have the affected area grassed over. She said this payment has put her in financial hardship and so she is now seeking reimbursement for this cost from the landlord as a resolution to this complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her communication with the landlord, the resident raised a concern that the dust from the garden slab was affecting her health and that of her family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The condition of the rear garden.

  1. The landlord’s minimum lettable standard notes that gardens must be clear of rubbish and that any paths, paving or steps must be safe. The landlord’s internal emails confirm that the previous resident had removed some of the paving slabs. It noted that some other slabs had been left broken, so the landlord had removed these as part of its voids works to make the area safe. The landlord acted reasonably in doing so. The landlord completed an inspection on 24 June 2022 and confirmed the garden met the minimum lettable standard. It noted the area was in a good state of repair and safe.
  2. The landlord also completed a tenancy inspection by video call on 25 April 2023. The resident showed the landlord around the property and all areas were confirmed as in good condition, including the garden. There is no evidence of the resident raising the issue with the garden.
  3. In both its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that:
    1. The garden met its lettable standard.
    2. The resident was responsible for maintaining the garden.
    3. It would therefore not be completing any works to the garden.
  4. This is in line with the provisions of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy and was therefore an appropriate response.
  5. The landlord also noted in its responses that the resident had viewed and accepted the property as seen and no changes would now be made. In her escalation request, the resident said she hadn’t fully inspected the garden and had accepted the property as she was desperate to move. She said the garden had looked tidy from the window and she was happy with that. It is not a direct failure of the landlord that the resident failed to fully inspect the garden. However, it is recommended that the landlord consider how it can ensure residents fully inspect properties prior to accepting to prevent similar issues occurring in future.
  6. The landlord’s complaint policy notes it may not investigate a complaint about a specific issue that occurred over 6 months prior to the complaint being made. In this case, it applied discretion and investigated the complaint despite the issue being over 12 months old. This was a reasonable approach.
  7. In both its responses the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns around financial hardship and signposted her to its foundation for financial support. It explained that although it would not be completing the work, she might be able to apply for a grant from its foundation to contribute towards the work she wanted to get done. This was a reasonable approach and shows the landlord wanted to help resolve the issue for the resident.
  8. The resident has informed this Service that she has since paid £370 to complete works to the garden and she wants the landlord to reimburse her for this amount. The garden met the lettable standard and the resident was responsible for maintaining the garden so there is no obligation for the landlord to do so. There is no evidence of the resident contacting the landlord’s. foundation. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord make contact with the resident confirming if the option of applying for a grant from its foundation remains open to her to recover any of these costs.
  9. In conclusion, the landlord acted appropriately in its handling of this complaint. Its responses were in line with its policies and it signposted the resident to its foundation for additional support. This investigation has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern with the condition of the rear garden.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider how it can ensure resident’s fully inspect properties prior to accepting to prevent similar issues occurring in future.
  2. The landlord should make contact with the resident and confirm if the option of applying for a grant from its foundation remains open to her to recover any of the £370 paid to complete works to her garden.