North Kesteven District Council (202314992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314992

North Kesteven District Council

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 the resident’s reports about:
   1. The condition of nearby allotments.
   2. The condition of her garden when she moved into the property.
   3. Repairs to her bathroom and electric fire.
   4. A wasp infestation.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her husband and young son. Her tenancy began on 6 March 2023.
3. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 May 2023. She reported that nearby allotments were overgrown, and her garden was full of waste from the previous resident. She had broken tiles in her bathroom, and it had not attended to repair her electric fire. She had a wasp infestation and had been trying to contact her Housing Officer but received no response.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 22 May 2023. It said she had the opportunity to view the property and that it had cleared the garden prior to letting. Its contractor would be in touch to repair the fire and bathroom tiles. It was resident responsibility to treat wasp nests. It was unsure what she meant by allotments.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 24 May 2023. She said that the Housing Officer did not show her the garden due to timing. She had to pay to deal with the overgrown trees and resurface the garden. She confirmed that the allotments were at the side and rear of her home. She was disappointed with its response as it had not spoken to her.
6. In its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023, the landlord said it had agreed to replace the toilet cistern and 4 tiles around the bath. It had asked the Housing Officer to contact her. The allotment fell under the responsibility of the town council and it recommended she contact them about her concerns. It offered £50 reimbursement for some of the issues she experienced.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wanted it to complete the outstanding work and ensure it responded promptly in the future.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

8. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
9. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
   1. The condition of nearby allotments.
10. We are unable to investigate the condition of the allotments as they do not fall under the landlord’s remit. It appropriately provided advice and contact details for the town council in its stage 2 response.

Scope of investigation

11. The resident told us that there had been leaks from her bathroom into the flat below. The work carried out resulted in damage to her flooring. These events occurred after the landlord’s final response on 16 June 2023.
12. In the interest of fairness, the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to these matters via its complaint process. Our investigation has therefore focussed on the events leading up to the landlord’s final response on 16 June 2023.

Reports about the condition of the garden

13. The tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for any trees within the boundary of the property. The landlord’s moving–in service standard states that the new home should have a tidy garden that is clear of rubbish. Its void standard says that it may delay garden work until a new tenant has moved in. It will recharge former tenants for the clearance of gardens when there is a breach of tenancy.
14. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order to remove debris from the garden on 30 March 2023. This was 24 days after the resident signed the tenancy.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2023 for an update. She stated that it was not her responsibility to clear overgrown bushes and trees. The back garden was full of sawdust, plastic sheeting, household items and rubbish, a BBQ, glass, and a bird aviary. She had done “10 tip runs” and paid £55 for waste removal. She was unable to allow her son into the garden as it was unsafe.
16. The landlord’s records of 6 April 2023 referred to contacting the resident to discuss clearance of “stuff” left by the previous resident. It sent an email to its voids officer. Further records of 24 April 2023 show that another order was raised to clear waste from the garden.
17. In the resident’s complaint she said it had been a month since she asked it to clear the garden. It was full of the previous tenant’s waste and she was unwilling to touch or get rid of it at her cost.
18. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that prior to offering the tenancy the resident had an accompanied viewing. Its property condition records indicate that it had met its void standard in terms of health and safety requirements. It had fully decorated the property and cleared the garden of excessive debris.
19. The landlord’s response was dismissive and lacked empathy. We have not had sight of the landlord’s void inspection report and do not dispute that it likely cleared waste. We also appreciate that the resident had viewed the property prior to signing the tenancy. However, given her reports of hazards shortly after moving in, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected to assess any risk. It raised orders, following commencement of her tenancy, to clear the back garden in March and April 2023. This suggests that it accepted that additional work was required.
20. In the resident’s escalation request, she said she had signed the tenancy, but the Housing Officer did not show her the garden due to time constraints. If she had known the extent of the work required, she would not have accepted the property. It had cost her a “fortune” to clear the overgrown garden. She was disappointed that no one had spoken with her about her complaint.
21. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it listed the reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction. It apologised that she was unhappy with its response and referred to other aspects of her complaint, but did not address the garden further. It offered £50 reimbursement for some of the issues she experienced.
22. The landlord’s response failed to address the resident’s concerns. It would have been good practice to have discussed her concerns with her during its investigation and prior to sending its response. It could have explained that trees were resident responsibility under the terms of the tenancy and any actions it had taken. It did not specify what the £50 reimbursement related to.
23. Given that there were 2 orders raised in March and April 2023, it accepted that further work was required to clear waste. As the resident raised the matter in her complaint following these dates, it suggests that no work was done. This was not in line with its moving–in service standard of having a tidy garden clear of waste. There is no evidence to show that the landlord visited the resident’s home to assess any risks or hazards. For the above reasons we have made a finding of service failure.

Reports about repairs

24. The landlord’s void standard says that it will carry out an electrical safety test and urgent repairs whilst a property is empty. It may complete minor repairs once a new resident has moved in. Its repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days, and routine repairs within 20 days.
25. The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident reported the fire not working on 10 March 2023, 4 days after moving in. On 28 March 2023, she reported damage to her toilet tank in the bathroom. Its records of 24 April 2023, again refer to the broken toilet tank and tiles.
26. In the resident’s complaint she said that the landlord had not attended to fix her fire or tiles. She raised her repairs again on 21 May 2023.
27. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the electric fire was designed to be additional heating and was not the primary heat source. The repair was not high priority, but a new electric fire was on order with its contractor. It would arrange a suitable time to install it once it was available. It had no record of any broken tiles but would ask its repairs officer to visit and discuss this along with any other outstanding faults.
28. The landlord’s response does not demonstrate that it had fully investigated its repairs records. The fire had been reported on 10 March 2023 and had not been repaired within its repairs policy timescale of 20 days. While it was reasonable to advise the resident that it had ordered a new fire and it would contact her to install it, it should have kept her informed about the repair and provided timescales. It said that its repairs records did not show any reports of broken tiles, but its records show that it was aware of this on 24 April 2023.
29. The resident did not refer to the repairs in escalating her complaint. However, she raised the matter again on 7 June 2023, stating that someone was supposed to look at her bathroom tiles which were damaged. There had been no follow up since raising her complaint.
30. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that its repairs and planned maintenance manager had visited on 14 June 2023. It had agreed to replace the toilet cistern and 4 plain white tiles around the bath.
31. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, its repairs records again referred to broken tiles in the bathroom on 4 July 2023. The resident made further contact on 11 July 2023 stating that it visited on 6 July 2023 but was told that it would not replace the tiles or cistern. Its repairs records again referred to the bathroom cistern needing replacement on 12 July 2023. The evidence shows that the resident continued to report the toilet cistern in late July, along with the electric fire replacement.
32. While the landlord’s responses could be said to have put things right for the resident, it failed to resolve the issues until months after she reported the repairs. The dates of the repairs are not known, however, the evidence shows that it was 4 months since she reported the fire and 3 months since reporting the toilet cistern and wall tiles. This was not in line with its repair policy timescales, and we have therefore made a finding of service failure.

Reports about a wasp infestation

33. The landlord’s website states that it is resident responsibility to contact pest control to remove wasp nests. Its tenants’ handbook provides a contact number for pest control services at discounted rates for residents.
34. The resident complained that she was unable to open her windows as she had an “invasion” of wasps. She had been waiting for someone to call her back.
35. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had raised a job to deal with the wasp nest, which was later cancelled by the resident. It had raised the job in error, and it was resident responsibility for the removal of wasp nests. It explained that wasp nests were generally problematic later in the year. It was likely that they were masonry bees which did not present a risk. It apologised for its error and any confusion.
36. The matter was not referred to further in the resident’s escalation request or the landlord’s stage 2 response. She told us that she contacted pest control who attended but did not charge her for the visit. They informed her that the holes in the external brickwork required filling to prevent the bees from entering and returning.
37. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order. It would therefore have been responsible to remedy any external brickwork. However, it is not known whether the resident informed it of the pest control findings. We have made a finding of no maladministration, but recommend the landlord inspects the property to check whether any holes require filling to prevent further infestations.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of nearby allotments is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden when moving into the property.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to her bathroom and electric fire.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a wasp infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

42. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete the following actions and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £200 broken down as follows:
       1. £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its failings in relation to the garden (this includes £50 offered in its stage 2 response which can be deducted if already paid).
       2. £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for the delays in completing repairs.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

43. The landlord should inspect the property to check whether any repointing or masonry holes require filling to prevent further infestations of masonry bees.
44. The landlord should also consider how it sets out its compensation offers to help with clarity and understanding of what its calculations relate to.