Origin Housing Limited (202123756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123756

Origin Housing Limited

25 January 2024 (amended at review)

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the repairs to the garden.
2. Handling of an alleged data breach.
3. Response to concerns about staff conduct.
4. Handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
On 18 January 2022, the resident reported an alleged data breach to the landlord. She said that her emails had been shared with a contractor and she considered this to be a breach of confidentiality.
On 9 August 2021, the resident said to the landlord that the contractor’s staff had been disrespectful and talked to her in a rude and patronising manner. She also told the landlord on 27 January 2022 that the contractor had continually lied to her, been inappropriate and sexist toward her.
The landlord’s internal complaint process (ICP) was completed on 4 August 2021.
After careful considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The following complaints were made after the ICP was completed:
1. The landlord’s handling of an alleged data breach.
2. The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that her pergola had been damaged by the landlord. However, this service has seen no evidence that this damage was raised with the landlord as part the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, it was not considered as part of this investigation or considered in the calculation of the compensation.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot make a determination on the way the landlord responded to the complaint of staff conduct and the complaint of data breach, as the issues were not included as part of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. If the resident remained unsatisfied with landlord’s response, the resident could raise the issue directly with the landlord.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The following aspect of the complaint is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO):
1. the landlord’s handling of an alleged data breach
As the complaint is relating to an alleged breach of data, such matter falls under the ICO’s jurisdiction and not the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident remains unsatisfied with the landlord’s response to the alleged data breach, the resident can raise the issue with the ICO at: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroomed house with a garden. The resident has lived at the property since August 2014.

Tenancy agreement, policies, and procedures

The tenancy agreement says that the resident is obliged to allow the landlord, or contractors acting on its behalf, access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to carry out repairs or work to the premises or adjoining property. The landlord will normally give at least 24-hour notice but immediate access may be required in an emergency.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says:
1. emergency works will be attended to make safe within two hours and fully rectified within 24 hours. Non-emergency works will be raised as a standard works order and attended to the resident’s convenience within 28 days.
2. Once the repair is complete, the operative will call the controller to inform them that the repair is complete. The controller will arrange for the customer to be contacted. If the customer is not satisfied then the contractor will arrange another appointment to resolve the issue.
3. If access is gained then the operative will compete an initial assessment including an on-site risk assessment.
The complaint policy says:
1. A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
2. There are two stages to the process.
  1. At stage one, the complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and the landlord will respond within 10 working days. If resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, the resident can request for the complaint to be escalated to stage two within 10 working days of the stage one response.
  2. At stage two, the landlord will respond within 20 days from the request to escalate.
  3. If the landlord cannot respond within the published time frame, this will be explained to the resident, setting out the reasons why and say when they can expect to receive a response. It may be necessary to extend the date for a full response by up to 10 working days. The landlord will not exceed this additional time estimate without a good reason.
3. The landlord will deal with all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for decisions.
4. Lessons learnt from the complaint process are used to inform service improvements.
The complaint handling code (the Code), published on the Ombudsman’s website, sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly.
The landlord has a procedure for compensation and it says that compensation is money it pays to residents in the event of them experiencing actual financial losses because of the landlord or its contractor’s actions. It also states:
1. that compensation relating to a loss of room use will be considered on a case-by-case basis. It will be considered where a household has not had the use of a room, beyond published repair times. The landlord may offer compensation as a proportion of the weekly/monthly rent.
2. The landlord may consider making a good will gesture payment as part of saying sorry to customers following any actions which may have caused loss or distress to the customer.
3. Damage to possessions where a resident’s belonging has been damaged because of ongoing disrepair or flooding for which the landlord is accepting liability a payment may be appropriate.
The landlord works with contractors to carry out the repairs in its property. For clarity, the report will refer to the landlord’s contractors as contractors. It should however be noted that even when using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as a landlord.

Summary of events

In 2019, the landlord became aware of an issue with bamboo spreading. When repairing the patio, the landlord removed some of the bamboo without fully removing the roots.
The landlord said in its stage two response on 4 August 2021, that it had not its intention at the start was to remove the bamboo and to give the resident back her pleasant garden to enjoy.
The resident said that the landlord visited her property on 11 September 2020, and it agreed the remedial work needed in her garden to address the issues caused by the bamboo.
The resident said that after an exchange of emails with the landlord, it told her on 8 October 2020, that it could not explain why the work agreed in September had not been completed. It said that the work was approved with the contractor.
On 21 April 2021, the landlord visited the property with a contractor and assessed the damage the bamboo had caused. The resident said that the damage had progressed and it had become a health and safety issue. The resident also said that the landlord stated it was not aware of the previous agreed plan for the work.
The resident said that she sent emails to the staff who had agreed the plan with her. She said the staff did not respond to her emails and that she received no further communication from the landlord.
On the 11 May 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The complaint was about:
1. the bamboo growing in the garden causing damage to the shed, patio, plants, and fence.
2. The length of time taking to resolve the matter.
The landlord responded on 14 May 2021 as followed:
1. it apologised for the time it had taken to address the issue.
2. It had arranged for remedial work to begin on 14 June 2021.
3. It said that the work would involve removing the fence between the properties, the removal of uneven slabs, the digging out of both gardens, replacing the rear fence with concrete gravel boards fitted into the ground to prevent roots coming through, removing the bamboo roots, backfilling with topsoil, laying quality turf and replacing the fence.
4. It offered a good will gesture of £50 to the resident.
On the 23 June 2021, the contractor, landlord and resident met at the property and agreed the work needed and the schedule. The resident also said that she had to email to chase the landlord as it had not shared the agreed schedule of work in the time frame previously agreed.
Emails exchanged between a neighbour, the resident and landlord in July 2021, evidenced that a neighbour was not satisfied with the work done by the contractor. The neighbour said that the contractor was not working to the agreed schedule of work, and that ‘the work was shambolic’. It was also said that the contractor’s schedule of work was different to the one agreed in June 2021.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 6 July 2021 that the work had not gone to plan. The landlord offered to meet the resident with the contractor, the resident declined as she felt that the work had already been agreed.
The resident told the landlord on 7 July 2021 that she would not allow the contractor on site until she had written confirmation of the work agreed. The landlord confirmed that it was working with the contractor to establish the schedule of work and would get back to her within two days. The landlord also said in an internal email on 7 July 2021, that the extent of the works required by the residents did not match what the contractor had and it did not match the list the landlord had.
On the 6 July 2021, the resident indicated that she had already made a request to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord told the resident the following day that her stage one complaint would remain open until the actions agreed at that stage were completed. It also told the resident that once the work in the garden was completed, it would contact the resident to discuss her request to escalate her complaint to stage two.
The landlord told the resident on 8 July 2021 that her complaint had been escalated to stage two.
On the 16 July 2021, the landlord and contractor met the resident at her property and agreed a new schedule of work. The landlord said that it emailed the new schedule to the resident on the same day. It also said that between the 19 and 23 July 2021, it communicated with the resident to finalise the schedule of work.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 July 2021, chasing an update on the work and a response to her complaint. The landlord told the resident that it was working with the contractor to procure a new team to complete the work and was planning for the work to restart on 9 August 2021.
The landlord said that the contractor’s director wanted to visit the resident to apologise for the failings and offered to meet on 2 August 2021. The resident declined a visit and said that she would accept a written apology.
The resident also said in her email to the landlord on 30th July 2021 that she had not heard back from the landlord regarding the escalation of her complaint on 8 July 2021. The resident requested a response to the stage two complaint and asked the landlord to address the following in her stage two response:
1. how the failing occurred.
2. Why the health & safety concerns had never been addressed.
3. All other points raised in emails to the landlord.
4. For the landlord to provide a final list of the work to be completed, including a daily schedule of work.
5. For the landlord to tell the resident who will be entering her property prior to starting the work.
6. To be given assurance that the work will be completed to the agreed standards.
The landlord sent the stage two response on 4 August 2021. Its response was:
1. it apologised for the length of time it has taken to resolve the bamboo issue. It said that when it first attended to deal with the bamboo, it had not understood the severity of the situation. It believed that the initial attempt it made to resolve the issue, by cutting back the bamboo, made things worse because it encouraged the bamboo to grow. It said that it had learnt from this and it will not happen again in the future.
2. It explained that the failings occurred because it had not agreed a scope of work with all parties. It said that it had agreed a limited scope of work with the contractor and had not communicated this with the resident. It also said that the scope of work agreed was not adequate to cover all the work required to remedy and reinstate the garden. It also said that it had learnt from this and that going forward it would make sure that everything needed and agreed will be explained clearly to all parties before starting the work.
3. It said that failings in delivering the remedial work were because of the lack of supervision and oversight of the work. It said that the site should have been left in a safe condition when the contractors left. It apologised and said that to prevent this from happening in the future, it will employ a clerk of works. The clerk of works will oversee the work, including health and safety and make sure the scope of work and the quality of the work are delivered.
4. It confirmed that it had procured a new team to carry out the work. It also said that it had clearly told the team what they are to deliver and to what standards, to retain a safe site and to have respect for the resident and her belongings.
5. It provided the resident with a daily schedule of the work to be completed. It also told the resident that it expected to restart the garden work on 9 August 2021. It said it would take two weeks to complete the work and that it will be completed to standards agreed with the resident and the contractor.
6. It confirmed which contractor will attend the resident’s property to carry out the work. It also said that all materials needed had been ordered.
7. It apologised for the time it has taken to resolve the issue, for the disturbance. upheaval and stress caused by the work to date.

Post final response of the internal complaint process.

The resident contacted the landlord on 9 August 2021 and said that she was unhappy as the contractor was not following the daily work schedule and had left the garden unsafe. The landlord explained that the contractor saw an opportunity to complete some of the work earlier than planned and had decided to go ahead. It apologised for the confusion and agreed to approve any deviation from the schedule with the resident first. The landlord organised for the contractor to return to the site that day to make the garden safe.
On 10 August 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she did not want the contractor to return to her property because of the many failings. The landlord confirmed that the contractor would not attend and asked the resident if she would prefer to organise her own contractor at the landlord’s cost. The landlord also offered for the current contractor to return to complete the work on 23 August 2021 and explained how it would ensure the work was done as per the agreed schedule of work. The resident declined these offers.
The resident asked for compensation for not being able to use her garden since 14 June 2021. On 13 August 2021, the landlord offered to pay compensation to the resident. The landlord said that it would consider the garden as an additional room and would apply the loss of use of a room criteria from its compensation policy to calculate the level of compensation.
The landlord said that it would pay:
1. The £50 agreed at the stage one response.
2. £20.56 per week for losing use of the garden. It said it will pay the compensation from 14 June 2021, date from which the resident said she could no longer use her garden, and until the work is completed.
3. £250 for the flowers she had lost.
4. For the replacement of the damaged tiles and shed.
The resident accepted the compensation, however, the resident and landlord confirmed in April 2023 that the compensation had not been paid as the work was not completed.
Between August 2021 and September 2021, the resident and landlord continued to communicate and a new contractor was allocated on 13 August 2021. All parties agreed a new schedule of work on 13 September 2021. The work restarted on the garden on 27 September 2021.
The landlord said that in December 2021, the resident became unhappy with the new contractor. The resident explained to the landlord on 18 January 2022 that the new contactor had failed to deliver what was promised and provided the landlord with a list of the work which had not been completed or not completed to the agreed standards.
The landlord responded and said on 28 January 2022 that mistakes had been made. It said that because the patio had been laid in the wrong direction, it had caused water to pool on the patio. It also acknowledged work was not completed as expected and agreed to carry out all remedial work needed and to pay for any damage caused. It also agreed to pay the resident for the electricity used.
On 31 January 2022, the resident asked for the contractor not to return to the site. The landlord said that it again offered for the resident to organise her own contractor and that the resident did not respond. On 1 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that it would arrange for another contractor, to complete the works.
In May 2022, the landlord informed the resident it had found a new contractor. It also reminded the resident that it would be happy for her to organise her own contractor if she preferred, and that it would meet the cost.
The landlord said that it offered to meet with the resident and the new contractor on 16 June 2022. It said that the resident did not respond.
In July 2022, the landlord said that it had not completed inspection reports or gained feedback from the previous contractors. It said since the issue of the bamboo started, it held joint site meetings with the resident and each contractor to agree what was wrong and what needed to be done to remedy any issues.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the garden

The resident has been experiencing issues to her garden because of an encroaching bamboo from a neighbouring property, this started in 2019. The resident’s garden and her belongings have been damaged because of the severity of the problem. The resident has not been able to use and enjoy her garden since 14 June 2021, both parties agreed that the resident had lost the use of her garden from that date. This has been a distressing and frustrating period for her.
The landlord has demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the issue caused by the bamboo and has attempted to put things right. It has organised three different teams to carry out the work and offered for the resident to organise her own contractor on two separate occasions.
The landlord showed flexibility in applying the terms of the tenancy. Each time the resident refused for a contractor to return to her property, it discussed the issues with the resident and agreed to look for an alternative contractor to carry out the work. It is noted that this contributed to the delays in resolving the issue. Each time the resident refused for a contractor to return, this was because she identified failures in the service delivered, this has not been disputed by the landlord.
The landlord provided evidence that in July 2021, it had addressed some of the resident’s concerns with the contractor, who then offered an apology to the resident and a way forward. These were reasonable actions to take on the part of the landlord to remedy the situation, rebuild trust with the resident and improve the tenant landlord relationship.
From the evidence provided the landlord reacted to each of the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction with the work done by the contractors and took steps to remedy the situation. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord tried to put things right several times, it also identified a series of failures.
The landlord acknowledged at the stage two response that, when it first attended, it had not understood the severity of the situation. The initial attempt it made to resolve the issue, made things worse. It did apologise and said that it had learnt from its mistake, which was an appropriate action to take. However, this was a missed opportunity and if it had been put right at that point, it would have prevented the resident experiencing frustration, inconvenience, time chasing for updates, and stress. It would have also prevented damage to the resident’s garden and belongings. The Ombudsman concluded that there was maladministration.
In September 2020, the landlord agreed with the resident the remedial work needed to return her garden to how it was before the issue with the bamboo started encroaching. The landlord then failed on several points:
1. In October 2020, the landlord told the resident that it did not know why the work had not been completed. It failed to provide an explanation for its lack of oversight.
2. The landlord did not carry out the repairs to the garden between September 2020 and April 2021.
3. The landlord returned to the property in April 2021, when it re assessed the damage caused by the bamboo. The landlord did not explain the reasons for the seven-month delay.
4. The resident said that because of the delays in dealing with the issue, her garden and belongings were further damaged.
5. The resident explained that when the landlord returned in April 2021, it was unaware of the remedial work it had agreed with the resident in 2020.
6. The landlord provided no evidence that it investigated what happened between September 2020 and April 2021 and provided no explanation for the failings.
The landlord was unaware of the work it had agreed to do, because of this, it failed to carry out the repairs when it said it would. It also failed to explain or apologise for the delays and failures in managing the work. It failed to address this in its complaint response at stage one. The delays and works not being managed effectively added to the distress of the resident and to the damage in the garden. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to be aware of and have records clearly capturing the works agreed. The landlord’s multiple failures impacted on the tenant landlord relationship and caused confusion, loss of time, loss of trust, financial loss and frustration to the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord.
The Ombudsman recognises that mis communication can happen. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate what happened between September 2020 and April 2021. This would have helped the landlord to understand what happened, learn from the failings, improve its service, and provide an explanation to the resident. This was also a missed opportunity to put things right and rebuild trust with the resident. There was maladministration on the part of the landlord.
In June 2021, the resident and landlord met with the contractor and agreed what remedial work would be done. The resident said that that she had to email the landlord to ask for the work schedule, as it did not share the schedule of work in the agreed time frame. This caused the resident some frustration and was time consuming for the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to meet its own time frame to help rebuild trust with the resident and prevent the resident having to chase for information.
The resident said to the landlord in July 2021 that the contractor was not working to the agreed schedule of work. The landlord recognised this at the time, as well as at the stage two response. It said that there had been poor communication between the landlord and its contractors. This caused misunderstandings on what work was needed and completed. This followed the resident clearly expressing that poor communication and lack of clarity had caused some issues previously and following the stage one complaint. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to learn from its previous mistakes, be clear on what work was agreed and to clearly communicate this with its contractor and the resident. The accumulations of the landlord’s broken promises and commitments further undermined the tenant landlord’s relationship. It caused the resident more distress, frustration and the loss of trust. It was also time consuming for the resident to report the issues, liaise with the landlord and the contractor to repeatedly agree solutions and a way forward.
The landlord recognised in the stage two response that it had failed to adequately supervise the work. Because of the lack of supervision, some of the remedial work was not completed to the agreed standards and the site was left unsafe. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the contractors carry out the work to standards, work in line with health and safety requirements and leave the site in a safe condition when leaving. Because of the failings, the resident had to take the time and effort to contact and report the issues to the landlord. The resident also reported that she could no longer use and enjoy her garden. This caused the resident considerable inconvenience, frustration, and distress. As a result of those failures and considering the impact those had on the resident, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s repair policy says that once the repair is done, the resident will be contacted and that if the customer is not satisfied another appointment will be arranged to put things right. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to initiate regular contact with the resident to check progress and satisfaction following the stage one response. This was not done and it left the resident to initiate contact every time something went wrong, this was stressful, time consuming and frustrating for the resident.
In the stage two response, the landlord provided evidence that it recognised and understood the reasons for the failings. It apologised and offered ways to resolve the issues. It also said that:
1. it had learned from what happened.
2. It would make sure that everything needed and agreed will be explained clearly to all parties before starting the work.
3. It would employ a clerk of works to oversee the work, including health and safety and to make sure the scope of work and the quality of the work are delivered.
4. It confirmed that it had procured a new team to carry out the work and that it had clearly told the team what they are to deliver and to what standards, to retain a safe site and to have respect for the resident and her belongings.
5. It provided the resident with a daily schedule of the work to be completed.
Those actions from the landlord were in line with the Code which says that the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. The actions taken by the landlord were also appropriate and in line with its complaint policy to resolve the issues and to learn from complaint and use the learning to improve its service.
The code also says that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In this case, the landlord provided no evidence that it successfully implemented the lessons learnt from the complaint and improved its service. The evidence has shown that the landlord continued to be reactive to issues, instead of being proactive in its service delivery. It also showed that the landlord failed to deliver on some of the promises it made to the resident at the stage two response.
Between August 2021 and January 2022, the resident continued to experience difficulties with the contractors and the standards of work. Two new teams of contractors attended her property to resolve the issue and failed to return the garden to how it was before the issue started. The landlord acknowledged that mistakes, such as laying the patio the wrong way and not installing suitable drainage, were made. The landlord provided evidence that during that time it continued to try to put things right, however it kept repeating the same failings in particular lacking oversight of the work and not providing what was promised to the resident. The repeated failings of the landlord continued to impact the tenant and landlord relationship and caused the resident considerable inconvenience and distress. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord.
The evidence has shown that, since the issue started in 2019, the landlord has been being reactive to the issues, and failed to be proactive enough to prevent the repeated failings. The resident reported each issue to the landlord and on every occasion, it had been unaware that there had been a problem. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have oversight of the work and monitor progress, and standards. Because of those failings, the resident experienced considerable inconvenience, stress, time loss, loss of trust and frustration over a considerable period. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord.
Due to the recurring failings and delays in resolving the issue, the resident faced substantive damages to her garden and belongings- namely the paving, the shed, and flowers. The resident has been unable to enjoy her garden since 14 June 2021, which both parties agree is when she lost the use of her garden. She had to spend a lot of time dealing with the issues, either by emailing the landlord to report issues or chase for updates and answers to her concerns. She also had five meetings with the landlord and different contractors to agree work schedules. Because of this, she experienced frustration, monetary loss, and distress. The resident described this period as ‘three years of misery’.
Up to 31 January 2022, the resident did engage with the landlord and worked with the landlord to find a resolution but due to the repeated failings, the tenant landlord relationship had deteriorated. The evidence has shown that the landlord had made attempts to contact the resident since January 2022 and had organised for a new contractor to carry out the remedial work. The resident has not engaged with the landlord since January 2022, and has refused access to resolve the issue.
The landlord agreed to pay for the resident’s damaged belongings namely the paving, the flowers, and the shed. The resident refused the replacement shed offered by the landlord. The landlord said that the replacement shed was of a better quality than the original shed. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord which the resident chose to refuse. The landlord offered the resident a £250 voucher to replace the damaged flowers, this was a reasonable offer and was accepted by the resident.
In this case, the landlord decided to consider the garden as an extra room. In accordance with its compensation policy, it calculated that compensation for the loss of use of the garden would be £20.56 per week. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has been flexible in applying its compensation policy when considering the garden has an extra room. It is a fair and reasonable offer and reflects the impact the loss of use had on the resident.
The landlord offered an apology and a good will payment of £50 in its complaint response of May 2021. The Ombudsman considered its own remedies guidelines, it concluded that the goodwill payment of £50 offered in its stage one response was too low. It did not appropriately or explicitly acknowledge the overall impact and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. It did not acknowledge the frustration, time loss and distress experienced by the resident over eight months or that it had been avoidable.
The Ombudsman took into account the later offer made by the landlord for a compensation of £20.56 per week for losing use of the garden. The Ombudsman recognises that between September 2020 and June 2021 the resident had some use of the garden and therefore full payment for the loss of use of the garden would not be proportionate. However, it also recognises that the resident could not fully enjoy her garden for 39 weeks.
The Ombudsman’s opinion is that a more appropriate level of compensation for the period between September 2020 and June 2021 is £400.92. This being equivalent to £10.28 per week for the 39 weeks – this is equivalent to 50% of the rate calculated by the landlord for the loss of use of a room. This reflects the failings between when the landlord agreed the work needed to put things right to when it returned to address the issue. The compensation reflects the poor communication, lack of action from the landlord. It also acknowledges that the resident couldn’t fully enjoy the garden but retained some use of it during that period.
The landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident on 13 August 2021. It said that it will pay the resident £20.56 per week for losing use of her garden. It said it will pay the compensation from 14 June 2021, when the resident lost use of her garden, and until the work is completed. The Ombudsman recognises that it is a fair and reasonable offer. This offer appropriately reflects the loss of access to the garden.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord had informed the resident that it would arrange for a different contractor to complete the works. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay £1,028.00. This being the equivalent to £20.56 for 50 weeks, to include the period of time between 14 June 2021 and 27 May 2022.
The resident has experienced an issue with bamboo growing into her garden from a neighbouring property since 2019. The landlord attended to the issue between 2019 and 2022. The resident was left to oversee the work being done by the contractors and initiate contact with the landlord every time something went wrong. The landlord offered compensation for the loss of the garden and damaged belongings, it did not appropriately or explicitly acknowledge the overall impact and inconvenience caused to the resident by its repeated failure to manage the garden works appropriately. The Ombudsman considered its own remedies guidelines and will order the landlord to pay £400 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble the resident took over 16 months to try and resolve the issue.
The landlord’s offer to organise a new contractor to carry out the remedial work and return the garden to where it was before the issue started is a reasonable offer. The Ombudsman would encourage the resident to resume contact with the landlord and allow access for the remedial work to be completed.
Overall, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the garden. Since 2020, the landlord repeatedly failed:
1. To keep oversight of the work and its contractors.
2. To communicate effectively with all parties.
3. To be proactive in delivering its service.
Because of the failings, the resident experienced:
1. Delays in resolving the issue.
2. Damage to her belongings.
3. Lost the use and enjoyment of her garden.
4. Spent considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue.
5. Significant distress during that time. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the garden.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident made a stage one and a stage two complaint. The landlord responded to both complaints within the published time frame of its policy.
The landlord did not respond in accordance with its policy and the Code as it did not address all aspects of the complaint in its response. The resident didn’t have those aspects of the complaint considered. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that the resident can request for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. When the resident made a request to escalate the complaint to stage two, the landlord advised that the stage one complaint was to remain open until it had completed the work. It said that it will discuss the request to escalate the complaint to stage two once it has completed the work. The resident challenged the landlord and it accepted the request to escalate to stage two on 8 July 2021. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord accepted the escalation request and the short delay had minimum impact on the resident. However, its initial refusal of the request, on the basis that the stage one was still open, was not in accordance with its policy or the Code.
In its stage two response, the landlord proposed a set of remedies to resolve the issue, this was in line with the code and appropriate actions to take by the landlord.
The code says that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In this case, the landlord failed to deliver on all the remedies it proposed. It also failed to evidence that it fully implemented the findings from lessons learnt from the complaint and improved its service. There was maladministration in the way it handled the complaint.
The landlord’s policy does not fully comply with the Code as reasons for declining to escalate a complaint are not clearly set out in its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the garden.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) and 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of an alleged data breach has been determined as being outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct has been determined as being outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the garden

The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord tried to put things right several times, it also identified a series of failures. The landlord failed to resolve the issue within a reasonable time frame. This was unfair to the resident who has been unable to enjoy the use of her garden for over two and half years.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively with its contractors and the resident and it did not supervise the work being completed. This left the resident to oversee the work, to spend a lot of her own time dealing with the issue and to contact the landlord every time something went wrong. This was time consuming and unfair. It caused the resident to experience frustration, stress, and distress.
The lack of coordination and oversight caused extensive delays and issues with the quality of work carried out. Because of this the standard of the work was compromised and health and safety became an issue. The failures had a significant impact on the tenant and landlord relationship.
Due to the repeated failings and the delays in resolving the issue, the resident faced damage to her garden and belongings, and she was unable to enjoy the garden.
The landlord failed to work in line with its policy and to implement the remedies and learning from the complaint. The landlord continued to be reactive and failed to work proactively. Because of this, it repeated the same failings several times and compromised the tenant and landlord relationship. The resident loss trust in the ability of the landlord to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord failed to address all aspects of the complaint at stage one and because of this, it deprived the resident of having her complaint fully responded to. It failed to respond in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
It also failed to initially accept the request to escalate the complaint to stage two, without providing a valid reason for its refusal. The resident had to challenge the landlord for her escalation request to be approved.
The landlord failed to deliver on the remedies it proposed in its stage two response.
The landlord failed to evidence that it fully implemented the findings from lessons learnt from the complaint and improved its service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its failures.
2. Pay directly to the resident £1,978,92 in compensation to reflect the landlord’s failings identified in this report:
  1. £400.92 to reflect the poor communication and inaction from the landlord. It also reflects that the resident could not fully enjoy the garden between September 2020 and June 2021 (This is including the £50 offered at the stage one response).
  2. £1,028.00 compensation (based on the landlord’s weekly rate as previously offered) for the period of 14 June 2021 and 27 May 2022, to recognise the landlord’s failings. It also recognises that the resident could not enjoy the use of her garden during that period.
  3. To pay £400 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble the resident took over 16 months to try and resolve the issue.
  4. To pay £150 to the resident in compensation to reflect the failure in handling the complaint and not addressing all aspects of the complaint at the stage one response.
3. To complete all of the outstanding works to the resident’s garden.
4. To pay the resident £20.56 per week (as calculated by the LL for loss of a room) from 27 May 2022, until the work is completed. A clear schedule of works should be agreed, so all parties know when the work is completed. To comply with the offers it made to the resident to replace her damaged items:
  1. To cover the cost for the replacement paving as previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been provided.
  2. To remake the offer to replace the shed with a shed of equal quality. if the resident choses to refuse the replacement shed, the Ombudsman will not expect the landlord to make a further offer.
  3. Issue the resident with a £250 voucher to replace the damaged flowers if this has not already been provided.
5. To comply with the offer, it made to the resident, if it has not already done so, to reimburse the cost of electricity and upon the provision of proof of the additional cost from the resident, also reimburse the resident for the cost of the use of water by its contractors.
6. To evidence that all staff dealing with complaints have received complaint handling training or to confirm the anticipated date it will deliver the training. The landlord is also to confirm that the training will include (but will not be limited to):
  1. Time scale to respond to complaints.
  1. Procedure for considering and responding to escalation request to stage two.
  2. Addressing all elements of a complaint in the response.
  3. Learning from complaint to improve services.
  4. The Code.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the lesson learnt from this case. The landlord will share with the Ombudsman, a copy of the action plan it has devised to address the failings of this case.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord complete the self-assessment of its complaint policy against the complaint handling code and consider whether it needs to review its complaint policy.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review the contract management arrangements with its contractors. The review should consider:
1. Process sharing and recording the works agreed, so details can be access internally.
2. Processes to manage allocation of the work.
3. Effective communication with all parties.
4. Oversight of the work.
5. Oversight of health and safety.
6. Inspections.
7. Record keeping.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider reading the knowledge and information management report (KIM). https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf