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

London Borough of Hounslow (202423242)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423242

London Borough of Hounslow

16 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the grass not being cut when it should have been.
    2. Failure to cut back ivy that was affecting his dog’s health.
    3. Handling of several of the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident explained that he has instigated a legal claim against the landlord, for compensation as result of it failing to cut back an ivy bush that was affecting his dog’s health. We have been sent details of the claim form submitted to court, which shows he has asked the court to consider how the landlord failed to cut the ivy back, so he cut some of it himself. He incurred costs doing so and also wants to be compensated for the distress it caused him directly and trying to protect his dog.
  2. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  3. Paragraph 41.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. In this case the resident is asking a court to consider the same issue referred to us, and the proceedings are ongoing. The claim form contains all the points we are being asked to investigate, including who owns the neighbouring property. The resident has made it clear he is continuing with the legal action. Therefore, as our service is an alternative to the court, after carefully considering the evidence, it is determined that the complaint about the landlord failing to cut back ivy that was affecting his dog’s health, is not within our jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, which is a flat, on a flexible tenancy since August 2020. He has reported he has mental health and other medical issues. The landlord is a council.
  2. On 21 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about grounds maintenance. Specifically, that overgrowth/ivy had not been cut back, about the infrequency of grass cutting and that the landlord would not review his evidence.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 August 2024. Having been contacted by the resident on 1, 3 and 4 September 2024, it responded on 4 September 2024 acknowledging his contact. It explained it should have acknowledged his complaint within 5 working days, by 29 August 2024. Had it done so, a stage 1 response should have been issued by 12 September 2024. Having missed the acknowledgement target by a day, it said it would still ensure its response was sent by 12 September 2024, so he would not be disadvantaged. On 9 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord why no one had asked for his additional evidence.
  4. A stage 1 response was issued on 20 September 2024. It apologised for the delay in sending it, but did not uphold the complaint. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day. The landlord acknowledged this on 24 September 2024, when it responded to different complaint. However, it says it did acknowledge it separately on 30 September 2024, which was six working days after the escalation.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 2 October 2024 he felt he had not received a proper acknowledgement as he had not been told how things would move forward. The landlord addressed this on 4 October 2024 and said it wanted to understand the reasons for the escalation.
  6. Correspondence between the resident and landlord continued about the complaint, along with other complaints during October 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 October 2024. It said:
    1. The grass cutting season commenced between March 2024 and April 2024 but was carried out on a schedule and was weather dependent.
    2. The first cut of the season for the property was in May 2024.
    3. It confirmed the resident’s video and photographs had been reviewed and show the grassed areas before the commencement of the grass cutting season.
    4. It did not accept the grass had grown excessively.
    5. It accepted there was an issue with its complaint handling.
  7. In terms of complaint handling, the landlord said it failed to discuss extending its deadline to respond to the complaint with him, and a new response date was only provided when it was chased. It said he should not have had to pursue a response to the overdue complaint, and it was making efforts to prevent this from happening in the future. It also accepted the resident’s stage 2 escalation was acknowledged 1 working day late due to its workload, and it apologised for that. It went on to offer the resident £50 compensation by way of remedy.
  8. As well as this complaint, the resident is unhappy with the overall complaint handling of 4 other complaints he made to the landlord and feels it has not learned from its mistakes.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the grass not being cut when it should have been.

  1. In August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that the grass cutting had been infrequent and grass had grown to excessive lengths. He said it had only been cut twice in 3 years and that grass cuttings were not always collected.
  2. In the interests of us investigating issues that are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made. In this case, the resident has referred to issues dating back to 2022, but it is apparent that matters escalated in 2024 when the complaint was made. Therefore, this investigation is focused only on grass cutting in 2024 and not what happened in the preceding years.
  3. The complaint is that grass cutting has not been carried out in accordance with the three weekly grass cutting schedule and it did not start until May 2024.
  4. In response to the complaint, the landlord explained it had spoken with the Grounds Maintenance Performance Manager and they were making sure grass cuttings were collected. It said they expected the grounds maintenance team to cut the grass every three or four weeks. However, this may take longer, depending on the weather conditions and rainfall, (which could impact the grass cutting schedule) and the growth of the grass. In terms of when the grass cutting season started, it said that was between March 2024 and April 2024 and the team worked through the schedule in sequence by address. This meant the resident’s block was not cut until May 2024, but it said there was no evidence of the area having grown excessively.
  5. The resident has said the landlord refused to look at his video and photographic evidence, but the stage 1 response confirmed it did look at a video and photographs, when forming a view on the complaint. It also reviewed additional evidence prior to responding at stage 2.
  6. When it comes to grass cutting, while the landlord’s team has a schedule it works to, its explanation that this is subject to factors such as the weather is reasonable. Therefore, if grass cutting did not start until mid-April for example, and the team worked on a 3 to 4 week cycle, it may be that the resident’s block would not be cut until the end of that cycle, in May. Even then, it would be weather dependent.
  7. We asked the landlord for any records it had of when grass cutting took place in 2024 and although it had said the first cut was 20 May 2024, it sent in records referring to cutting taking place on 21 March 2024 and 18 April 2024. It also had a record of the grass being cut on 20 May 2024 and 24 July 2024.
  8. It is therefore not clear whether the first cut took place in March or May 2024. In any event, although the strength of feeling the resident has over this is noted, it is not our role to determine at what length the grass should be cut or the frequency. The landlord has explained the process and provided a reasonable explanation as to why grass cutting may not always be done exactly to schedule and may therefore be infrequent. As grass cutting is actually taking place, we find there to be no maladministration in that respect.
  9. Having said that, it is clear the resident feels the amount he pays in service charge should be reduced or refunded due to the frequency of grass cutting. He is entitled to his view on this, but it is not our role to determine whether the level of service charge paid is reasonable or should be paid at all, based on how often the grass is mowed. That is the role of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
  10. The FTT has powers to determine whether service charges are reasonable, and whether a landlord has followed the correct procedure to be entitled to recover service charges. Therefore, the resident will need to make an application to the FTT if this is something he wishes to pursue further.

The landlord’s handling of several of the resident’s complaints.

  1. The resident made 5 separate complaints to the landlord. Each were given a reference by the landlord and for ease, a brief chronology of each is set out below:
    1. Landlord complaint reference ending 4455 received on 4 July 2024.
      1. Acknowledged on 8 July 2024. The resident was told he would receive a response by 22 July 2024.
      2. Stage 1 response issued on 12 July 2024.
      3. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 24 July 2024 in person and the landlord spoke with him that day and the next day.
      4. The landlord summarised what the resident was seeking on 29 July 2024 and said a stage 2 response would be issued by 23 August 2024.
      5. The stage 2 response was issued on 23 August 2024 and an offer made to resolve the complaint.
    2. Landlord complaint reference ending 4554 received on 24 July 2024.
      1. On 26 July 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and apologised that it had not fully understood the complaint being made.  It said a stage 1 response would be sent by 8 August 2024.
      2. A stage 1 response was sent on 15 August 2024 and the landlord apologised for the delay. The complaint was not upheld.
      3. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 August 2024. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 23 August 2024. It said it would respond by 20 September 2024.
      4. The stage 2 response was sent on 20 September 2024. It upheld the complaint. It said the inclusion of issues relating to separate complaints and unrelated matters had caused confusion and frustration and the stage 1 response included points that were beyond the scope of the investigation. It offered £50 compensation as remedy. Emails were exchanged after that to clarify queries from the resident, but the remedy offered remained open for acceptance.
    3. Landlord complaint reference ending 4638 received on 14 August 2024.
      1. The complaint was acknowledged on 19 August 2024 and the resident was told a stage 1 response would be issued by 2 September 2024.
      2. The stage 1 response was issued on 30 August 2024 and it explained the complaint was not upheld. The resident challenged the landlord that day on the facts of the matter and referred it to photographs he had taken.
      3. The landlord acknowledged the resident remained unhappy and escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day.
      4. The stage 2 response was sent on 27 September 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint based on the evidence provided by the resident. It thanked him for supplying the information and offered £50 compensation in recognition of his time and trouble bringing the complaint.
    4. Landlord complaint reference ending 4689 received on 21 August 2024.
      1. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 30 August 2024, and it advised a stage 1 response would be sent by 12 September 2024.
      2. The landlord was told by the resident on 4 September 2024 that he was unhappy his acknowledgement was late, so he would be escalating the complaint to stage 2 nonetheless.
      3. The landlord replied the same day and accepted it should have acknowledged the complaint by 29 August 2024. It apologised for any confusion, and said although the complaint was logged on 30 August 2024 it would not affect the timescale it should have adhered to. It would still work to the 12 September 2024 date. Therefore, he had not been disadvantaged.
      4. The resident submitted a link to a YouTube video in support of his complaint, on 9 September 2024.
      5. A stage 1 response was sent on 20 September 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay in it being sent and explained it was due to the number of complaints it was dealing with. It did not uphold the complaint.
      6. An email sent by the landlord on 4 October 2024 stated the resident had escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 September 2024 and it had acknowledged that on 1 October 2024. It noted the resident had said he had evidence to support his complaint, and an investigating officer would liaise with him about how to review that. 
      7. During October 2024, the resident told the landlord he felt the acknowledgement was not adequate and he explained why he felt this complaint, and another (ending 4722), had not been fully addressed.
      8. The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent on 25 October 2024. It partially upheld the complaint because there were delays at stage 1 and 2, so offered £50 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused.
    5. Landlord complaint reference ending 4722 received on 4 September 2024. This was recorded as a complaint about the way complaint ending 4689 was handled. It is evident from the correspondence there was an overlap and some confusion between this complaint and the one ending 4689.
    6. There is reference in correspondence to the resident saying he had been advised by us to complain about how complaint ending 4689 was being dealt with. However, this should have been done by escalating complaint ending 4689 through the complaints process (through stage 1, stage 2 and then to us if need be). Therefore, it is a little confusing as to why a new complaint was set up. In any event, this was done and:
      1. A stage 1 response was issued on 24 September 2024. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for taking 6 working days to acknowledge the complaint. It explained it had adjusted the target date to respond, so the resident would not be disadvantaged by its delay.
      2. It is not entirely clear when the complaint was escalated to stage 2, but initially the landlord rejected the escalation. On 4 October 2024, it said it would reconsider whether the complaint should be escalated, and a decision was made to investigate it further. An acknowledgement was sent on 16 October 2024, which included an apology for the delay, after the resident chased for that the day before.
      3. The resident advised the landlord that despite the delay, a stage 2 response was due by 25 October 2024, and it agreed to adhere to that.
      4. A stage 2 response was issued on 25 October 2024. It accepted there was a delay in the recording of the escalation of the complaint and it had refused his request to progress to stage 2 as it incorrectly thought the issues had already been addressed. It pointed out it had still issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days as it should have. It upheld the complaint as there had been delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1 and 2. It offered £50 compensation due to the impact it had had on the resident’s health.
  2. The landlord’s corporate complaints, comments and compliments policy (the policy) says a stage 1 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response issued within 10 working days of the acknowledgement being sent. If the timescale needs extending for a further ten working days due to complexity, it notifies the complainant with the reasons. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2 it should be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt, and a response issued within 20 days. If the complaint is complex it may extend its response time be a further 20 working days, but it would explain why that was necessary.
  3. In this case, the landlord complied with the timescales set out in the policy in respect of complaints ending 4455 and 4638. Therefore, there was no issue in that regard. However, with complaint ending 4638, the landlord did not uphold the complaint at stage 1 but did at stage 2 based on photographs provided by the resident, despite that evidence being available at stage 1. This is proven by an email sent from the resident to the landlord on 19 August 2024 which said, “I have photos as evidence that were taken after each visit on the 14th 15th and the 16th that show the work was not done.”
  4. It is clear the landlord had all the evidence it needed to investigate the complaint at stage 1. The fact it altered its position at stage 2 is indicative that not all the evidence had been fully considered at stage 1. Therefore, it should not have required the resident to escalate his complaint for it to to acknowledge the shortfall in its service. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered compensation of £50 to recognise the trouble he had to go to bringing the complaint. This amount is in line with suggested compensation in our remedies guidance, where there has been a service failure that did not last long but may have caused some distress and inconvenience/time and trouble and delays.
  5. With complaint ending 4554, the landlord was late issuing its stage 1 response. It was not sent until 14 working days after the complaint was made and it was a day late acknowledging the complaint had been escalated to stage 2. While the landlord did tell the resident it would send its stage 2 response by 20 September 2024, and it adhered to that, it was still a day later than it should have been had the complaint been acknowledged on time. Overall, there was a delay of 5 working days in total, but this was recognised by the landlord and compensation of £50 offered by way of a remedy. Again, this amount of compensation sufficiently acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused by a short delay.
  6. Regarding the last 2 complaints ending 4689 and 4722, with complaint ending 4689, the stage 1 acknowledgement was issued 1 day late. However, having then promised to issue its response by 12 September 2024, it missed that deadline, and it was sent 6 working days late. The resident’s expectations were therefore mismanaged. While there seems to have been some confusion over these last 2 complaints at that time, there was then a further 2 day delay acknowledging the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 which would have added to his frustration.
  7. With complaint ending 4689, again the stage 1 response was issued 1 day late. There was also a delay at stage 2 because the landlord incorrectly rejected the resident’s request to escalate the complaint, but it did acknowledge this. The stage 1 and 2 responses were still issued on time though, so the delays in the acknowledgements did not affect the overall timescales for dealing with the complaint. However, the resident was put to the trouble of having to raise his concern over the delays and initial rejection.
  8. In both cases, the landlord again accepted shortfalls in its service and offered £50 compensation for each of the complaints. As with the other complaints, for minor delays, the compensation amount offered was reasonable. However, we have also considered the overall complaint handling and whether the amount of compensation offered is sufficient.
  9. In total, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its poor complaint handling in respect of 4 of the complaints. With each of the complaints where there was an issue with the complaint handling, there were only short delays, amounting to just a matter of days. The landlord still ensured the complaints were addressed and at times things were complicated due to additional issues being added and there being an overlap on complaints.
  10. Taken individually, the issues with each complaint amount to minor service failures and the offers of £50 for each omission were reasonable and proportionate, so in line with our remedies guidance. However, due to the number of complaints made by the resident at a similar time, the landlord could have done more to recognise there was a pattern emerging with timescales sometimes being missed, albeit by only a few days. Having spoken with the resident, his frustration lies with the landlord repeating its mistakes.
  11. This cumulative effect was clearly causing the resident increasing frustration, and when looking at the complaint handling overall, the fact similar issues occurred, does indicate the landlord was not learning from its mistakes. Having said that, we have to recognise these complaints were submitted very closely together, with some overlapping. Therefore, there was not much time for the landlord to reflect on where things went wrong and to put systems in place to try and put things right.
  12. There was though, a pattern of the landlord not always meeting the timescales of its policy and the fact this occurred in 4 complaints, is maladministration. These failings did upset the resident, but the poor service had no permanent impact. The landlord acknowledged them and put forward offers to resolve each complaint and bearing in mind each of the delays were minor, any compensation should be modest. In total the landlord’s offers amount to £200 and looking at all complaints cumulatively, that amount of compensation, in accordance with our remedies guidance, would be fair to recognise the overall impact on the resident in this case.
  13. Therefore, whether looked at as individual service failures, or overall maladministration, a reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports that the grass was not cut when it should have been.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the landlord failing to cut back ivy that was affecting his dog’s health, is not within our jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of several of the resident’s complaints.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £200 compensation offered (if it has not already). This recognised a deficiency in the way it dealt with the handling of the resident’s complaints. The reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.
    2. Review how it recorded and responded to these complaints to identify any actions it could take to ensure complaint handling targets are not missed in the future.