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

Peabody Trust (202348485)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348485

Peabody Trust

6 September 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about restricted use of the shared garden and being unable to obtain safe passage from the building in the event of an emergency.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a first floor flat. The tenancy agreement does not reference any access to, or use of, a garden.
  2. It is understood that there had been difficulties between the resident and the neighbour since 2020, due to a difference of understanding about the use of the rear garden.
  3. During the landlord’s internal complaint process, the landlord explained that it had carried out a visual inspection of the “shared garden”, which was found to be “fit for purpose”. It had spoken to the neighbour and advised them not to block access to the shared garden.
  4. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2024, because he felt the landlord had not resolved his complaint satisfactorily. The resident said the landlord ought to remove any fencing from the rear shared garden which prevented his access, thereby also restoring his route of escape from the building in an emergency.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between September 2022 and 19 December 2023. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about restricted use of the shared garden and being unable to obtain safe passage from the building in the event of an emergency.

  1. The Ombudsman notes that there were a series of tick boxes on the tenancy agreement which the landlord was required to fill in, which clarified whether a property would be let with or without access to its own or a shared garden. There were no boxes ticked on the resident’s tenancy agreement, which may suggest that the landlord intended to let the property without access to a garden. Nonetheless, it is understood that the landlord accepted that the resident did have use of the rear garden, albeit shared with the neighbour.
  2. The resident reported on 13 July 2023, that his access to the shared rear garden had been restricted. In subsequent communications, the resident suggested that the neighbour had installed a fence which was preventing his use of the garden. The resident was particularly concerned about this because he believed this was his only means of exit from the building in an emergency. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify the correct arrangements for exiting the building from the evidence seen.
  3. In response, the landlord said it would investigate and would speak to all parties before deciding on an appropriate course of action. The landlord committed to keeping the resident informed of the actions it would take to address the situation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s proposed approach was reasonable.
  4. It is understood that upon inspection, the landlord found the shared garden to be fit for purpose, which required no modifications. It was positive that the landlord communicated with the neighbour and reiterated that access to the shared garden should not be impeded. The landlord ought to have provided the Ombudsman with copies of its inspection notes and any contemporaneous notes from its conversation with the neighbour, to verify its actions.
  5. It is unclear from the evidence seen, whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concern that his only route of escape from the building was obstructed. The landlord’s failure to clearly address this at both stages of the landlord’s internal complaint process, left this matter unresolved for the resident. This is likely to have caused the resident continued worry.
  6. The Ombudsman is concerned that since the landlord issued the stage 2 final complaint response, the resident has continued to raise concern about fencing blocking access to the shared garden and obstructing his escape route from the building. The landlord has not evidenced that it responded to the resident’s ongoing concerns about this, which suggests that these matters remain unresolved. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a clear and satisfactory response in relation to these matters was unreasonable.
  7. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about restrictions on the use of the shared garden and obtaining safe passage from the building in the event of an emergency.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about restricted use of the shared garden and being unable to obtain safe passage from the building in the event of an emergency.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation, which has been calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This compensation reflects the likely distress and continued uncertainty caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a clear and satisfactory response in regard to the substantive matter of complaint. 
  2. The landlord must endeavour to carry out a joint inspection with the resident. Depending upon its findings, the landlord must write to the resident:
    1. Setting out its intended approach (including expected timescales), for dealing with any identified obstructions, which may prevent the resident from accessing the shared garden.
    2. Satisfy itself and explain the route that the resident would be expected to take when exiting the building in the event of an emergency. Where an obstruction to this route is identified, the landlord must set out its intended approach (including expected timescales) for dealing with the obstruction.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.