Ongo Homes Limited (202315596)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315596

Ongo Homes Limited

14 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 garden works.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since October 2020. The property is a 3 bedroom house with a garden. He lives there with his wife and children.
3. In October 2022, the landlord identified that one of resident’s back garden boundary fences was not in the right place. This meant an overgrown area of land at the end of the resident’s garden should have been part of his garden. The landlord said it agreed to install a new fence on the correct boundary and clear the area.
4. The landlord cleared the area in November 2022 and in early February 2023, it said a new fence had been fitted on the correct boundary. It noted the resident said he was happy with the work carried out. It agreed to follow up with him in March/ April 2023 to see what further support it could provide with the garden.
5. In mid-April 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the garden works. He said everything that had been cleared had started growing again. The landlord agreed to look in to whether it could give him something to help reduce the weeds growing back. It made internal enquiries about this the same day.
6. On 15 June 2023, the resident made a complaint and said works to his garden had not been completed. The landlord had promised to install more fencing, including a garden gate but this was not done. It had told him in April 2023 it would provide grass seed and an update on further works but he had heard nothing about this.
7. On 20 June 2023, the landlord delivered grass seed to the resident and the next day it sent its stage 1 complaint response. This said the complaint was not upheld because it had completed all agreed works in the garden. After this, it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden. The grass seed had not been provided in April 2023, but it had now given this to him. It had not agreed to install a garden gate but would do an inspection to look at this the following month.
8. In late June or early July 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint and said he wanted the landlord to resolve the issues with his garden and fencing. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2023. This said the complaint was not upheld for the same reasons given at stage 1. If it was possible to install a gate between him and the neighbour, then it fully supported this being done.
9. The same day, the resident raised his complaint with us. He said the landlord had promised to do more works in the garden but went back on this. It should not have let the property to him with the garden in the condition it was. It had done works to clear some of the garden but this was not done properly and it had left overgrown trees and broken fences.

Assessment and findings

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement says he is responsible for looking after all parts of the garden and keeping it in a tidy condition. Despite this, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to clear the newly added section of garden in 2022. As this area had not been included in the resident’s garden when his tenancy began 2 years earlier, it was fair that the landlord took responsibility for clearing this when the boundary was corrected. Particularly as the area was very overgrown.
11. The landlord has said it is responsible for fencing on boundaries with a public highway, but not between neighbouring gardens. Again, despite this, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to install a new fence in the correct place in 2022. This was because the resident was not responsible for the initial error in the boundary placement.
12. The landlord noted that the works to clear the garden and install a new boundary fence were completed by 3 February 2023. While these took over 3 months to complete, considering the nature of the works and the time of year (that included the Christmas and New Year break) this timescale was reasonable. During the period of the works, the landlord noted that it made monthly contact with the resident to provide updates. This was sensible and provided reassurance that it was making progress and had not forgotten about the works.
13. After the landlord completed works to the garden in February 2023, it agreed to follow up with the resident in the spring to see what further support it could offer. Despite promising this, the landlord did not contact the resident. It was only after he made contact in mid-April 2023 that it took further action. This amounts to maladministration and left him feeling that the landlord did not want to help him.
14. The landlord’s commitment to contact the resident to see what further support it could provide raised his expectations that it would do more works in the garden. There is no evidence that the landlord explained what further support it could offer or reminded him that the overall maintenance of the garden was his responsibility. This would have been sensible to ensure he understood any limitations on what actions the landlord might take.
15. In April 2023, the landlord agreed to look into whether it could provide resources for the resident to help him maintain the garden, but did not agree to carry out any further works. This was disappointing for him and could have been avoided if the landlord had been clearer about its intentions.
16. The landlord did make internal enquiries about providing grass seed in April 2023. However, it did not give him this until after he raised his formal complaint 2 months later. This delay amounts to maladministration. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint responses, apologised and said this happened because of a breakdown in communication. Despite acknowledging this service failure, it did not uphold the complaints. This was confusing for the resident and caused him to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
17. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord his garden had become overgrown again because the grass seed had not been supplied at the time promised. The landlord did not agree with this and said there was no link between it not supplying the seed and the overgrown garden. While frustrating for the resident that the landlord did not give him the grass seed at the time promised, this delay was not linked to the garden becoming overgrown again. The garden would have grown regardless of whether the seed was provided in April 2023, or not. Therefore, the landlord’s response to this concern was reasonable.
18. Throughout the landlord’s handling of this matter, we have seen no evidence that it has written to the resident confirming actions and/ or works agreed. It is best practice for landlords to confirm any decisions in writing, particularly if these relate to what it will or will not do. This is so that all parties are clear on what has been agreed and reduces the risk of raised expectations and/ or misunderstandings.
19. There is no evidence that the landlord has done that in this case. The landlord noted in February 2023 that the resident was satisfied with the works completed; but when he raised his complaint in June 2023, he said the landlord had told him it would do more works than it had. The resident has told us he was contacted last year and promises were made that works would be done but they have not been. We have seen evidence that the landlord completed works in 2022/23 and more recently in 2024; however, in the absence of evidence, we cannot say if the works completed are what was agreed, or not.
20. The landlord should have confirmed this in writing to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding. Its failure to do so left the resident believing more works would be done than the landlord said were agreed. When the landlord did not do the works the resident expected, this left him feeling let down. This amounts to maladministration and could have been avoided if the landlord had confirmed in writing exactly what works it would do.
21. An order has been made for the landlord to send a written update to the resident confirming what works it will carry out in the garden and a timescale for these to be completed. This should include a commitment to post inspect the works once completed.  A further order has been made for the landlord to provide guidance to front line staff on the importance of confirming discussions in writing, particularly where actions have been agreed or promises made.
22. When the resident raised concerns about a missing side gate, the landlord agreed to look in to this and completed an inspection on 28 July 2023. It noted this had been built by the previous resident, so it was not responsible for maintaining this. While frustrating for the resident, this was in line with guidance on its website, which says residents are responsible for fences and gates not installed by the landlord.
23. While reasonable that the landlord could decline to carry out works to the gate on this basis. Its stage 2 response said that if the installation of the gate was possible, it fully supported this being done. This was a commitment over and above the guidance on its website and understandably raised the resident’s expectations that it would carry out works to the gate.
24. The note of the inspection confirmed that the works were possible. However, the landlord did not go ahead with any works after the inspection, despite committing to do so in the stage 2 response. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident.
25. It was 8 months later, in April 2024, after contact from us that the landlord progressed works to the gate. It has told us that these works were completed, but has not provided any evidence to show when this was done. This is a concern and means we have been unable to assess the exact timescale of these works. While positive that these works have been completed, we know there was at least an 8 month delay in the landlord progressing these. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling let down.
26. In response to contact from us in April 2024, the landlord said the issues with the garden boundaries should have been identified and resolved at the time the house was let to the resident. On reflection the complaint should have been upheld and compensation offered. It is positive that the landlord reviewed this matter; however, there is no record that it told the resident this or offered compensation at that time. This suggests the landlord was not truly committed to putting things right for the resident.
27. The landlord has provided evidence that further garden works were completed in August/ September 2024, which is positive. However, there are still outstanding works, which are due to be completed in March 2025. That means this matter has been ongoing for more than 2 years since the landlord first identified the boundary issue in October 2022; and to date the issues remain unresolved. This has been upsetting for the resident and his family as he said they have been unable to use their garden properly, particularly his children.
28. This amounts to maladministration and has caused the resident to lose faith that the landlord will ever resolve this issue. Orders have been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £400 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of garden works.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Sent a written update to the resident confirming what works it will carry out in the garden and a timescale for these to be completed. This should include a commitment to post inspect the works once completed. 
    2. Given guidance to front line staff on the importance of confirming discussions in writing, particularly where actions have been agreed or promises made.
    3. Apologised to the resident for its handling of garden works.
    4. Paid the resident £400 compensation for its handling of garden works.