Platform Housing Group Limited (202318118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318118

Platform Housing Group Limited

23 June 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:
   1. His garden had been damaged.
   2. The hedges at the property were not being maintained.

Background

2. The resident had a shared ownership of a 2-bedroom house with the landlord from March 2020. He became the sole owner of the property in November 2024.
3. The resident called the landlord on 2 June 2023. He said the landlord’s operatives had cut the grass on his garden on 2 occasions, when it was not meant to do so. He also told the landlord on 3 June 2023 he had been maintaining hedges on the property, as the landlord failed to do so.
4. On 6 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said the landlord should not have cut the grass in his garden. He added he wanted the landlord to compensate him for maintaining hedges which were its responsibility.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 June 2023. It apologised and offered £150 compensation for cutting the grass in his garden. The landlord said he would not be compensated for maintaining the hedges, as it maintained them twice a year.
6. The resident told the landlord on 9 July 2023 he wanted to escalate his complaint.
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 4 August 2023. It apologised and made an increased offer of £305 compensation to the resident for cutting his grass and not maintaining the hedges. 
8. The resident contacted us on 13 September 2023 as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports his garden had been damaged

9. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2023. He said the landlord’s operatives had cut the grass at the front of his property. He said the garden area was part of his property and not to be maintained by the landlord. The landlord emailed its grounds maintenance team the same day and told it not to cut that area of the estate.
10. The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 and 3 June 2023 as he said the grass had been cut again by its operatives. The resident said there were wildflower seeds planted in the grass, which had been destroyed when the operatives cut it.
11. Under the terms of the shared ownership agreement for the property, the landlord was responsible for maintaining communal facilities, including open spaces and landscaped areas. The plans for the estate show the resident’s property included an area of grass, which was apportioned to his property and therefore the landlord was not due to maintain.
12. The landlord’s records show its operatives cut the grass which was part of the resident’s property on 2 occasions. The landlord provided evidence which shows the error was due to it providing its operatives with an incorrect map of the estate. The incorrect map showed the grass at the front of his property was part of a communal landscaped area.
13. The landlord called the resident on 6 June 2023. The resident told the landlord its operatives had trespassed on his property and cut the grass. The resident complained to the landlord by email the same day. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 June 2023.
14. On 27 June 2023 the landlord sent a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord explained its error in cutting the grass was due to incorrect records. The landlord accepted it had cut the grass in his garden on 2 occasions. It apologised wildflowers were damaged. It said it would amend its records to ensure the correct areas of the estate were maintained by it in the future. The landlord offered £150 compensation for the damage caused.
15. A review of the landlord’s complaint response shows it accepted it had made an error. It apologised to the resident and offered redress for its actions. The landlord also said it would correct its records, so the error was not made again.
16. On 30 June 2023 the resident told the landlord he wanted it to review his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 July 2023.
17. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 July 2023. He said he wanted £186 compensation, which comprised of:
    1. £10 for replacement wildflower seeds.
    2. £76 for the time taken to contact the landlord about the issue with it cutting his grass.
    3. £100 for the distress caused by the landlord’s operative incorrectly cutting his grass on 2 occasions.
18. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 August 2023. It apologised again for cutting the grass. The landlord said it had updated its records to show the area of the estate which was the resident’s property. The landlord made a revised compensation offer of £210 to the resident, which was comprised of:
    1. £10 for replacement wildflower seeds.
    2. £100 for incorrectly cutting his grass on 2 occasions.
    3. £100 for the inconvenience caused in having to complain about the matter.
19. Analysis of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response shows it made a further apology to the resident, and it offered an increased compensation. The landlord also confirmed it had updated its records regarding estate, as promised in its initial complaint response.
20. The resident contacted us on 13 September 2023. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his complaint.
21. The evidence shows that following the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord apologised and offered compensation for incorrectly cutting his grass and damaging flowers in his garden. Following the escalated complaint the landlord increased its compensation offer and confirmed it had corrected its records so it would not cut his grass again.
22. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
23. In summary, the landlord accepted wrongdoing, apologised and offered redress to the resident for its errors and the inconvenience caused to him. It amended its records during the complaint process to ensure it would not make the same error again. This demonstrates the landlord learned from the complaint and made changes to prevent a re-occurrence in line with the dispute resolution principles. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was greater than the resident requested at stage 2 and was in line with an amount considered appropriate by us to provide remedy for the failures which were present in the circumstances.
24. The landlord demonstrated it acted fairly and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer which put things right for the resident for the failings identified in damaging his garden.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports the hedges at the property were not being maintained

25. The landlord called the resident on 6 June 2023. He asked the landlord to clarify who was responsible for maintaining the hedges next to his driveway. He said he had been trimming them, but he wanted compensation from the landlord if it turned out it was the landlord’s responsibility to do so.
26. Under the terms of the shared ownership agreement for the property, the landlord was responsible for maintaining communal landscaped areas. The resident paid a monthly service charge to the landlord for its grounds maintenance. The agreement did not say how often the landlord should carry out this maintenance. The property plans show the hedge next to the resident’s driveway is not part of his property and is therefore the responsibility of the landlord to maintain.
27. Despite its obligations to maintain the hedges, the landlord has not provided any evidence as part of this investigation it did so prior to June 2023. The failure to maintain the hedges was a failure to uphold the agreement it had with the resident.
28. The resident sent a complaint email to the landlord on 6 June 2023. He said he had previously been told by the landlord he was responsible for maintaining the hedges, so he had done so. He did not clarify when he was told they were his responsibility. The resident reiterated he wanted to be compensated as the landlord was meant to maintain the hedges and was failing to do so. He said he wanted the landlord to either provide a guarantee from its Director it would maintain the hedges going forward, or it amend the shared ownership agreement to show the hedges were part of his property, and therefore his responsibility.
29. On 27 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said its records showed the hedges were its responsibility to maintain. It said the resident had been given a copy of the plan showing this when the shared ownership was agreed. The landlord told the resident it would trim the hedges twice a year, which it believed was sufficient maintenance. The landlord said the resident could also trim the hedges as well if he wished, but he would not be compensated for any works he had carried out. The landlord said it would not transfer the hedged area to become part of his property.
30. Analysis of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response shows it failed to clarify if it had been fulfilling its obligations prior to the resident raising the complaint, as per the terms of the shared ownership agreement.
31. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 30 June 2023.
32. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 July 2023. He said the landlord had previously told him the plans for the estate were wrong and the hedges were his responsibility to maintain. He said he had asked the landlord to correct the plans if this was the case, but that it took no action.
33. The resident did not say as part of his correspondence when he was told the plans were wrong or when he contacted the landlord about changing them.
34. The resident asked for a refund of the service charge he paid for garden maintenance for the previous 2 years as he said it had not maintained the hedges. The resident again asked the landlord to transfer the relevant land to him, so he could continue to upkeep the hedges. He said he wanted the landlord to pay £705 compensation, which consisted of:
    1. £20 for the costs of running the hedge trimmer.
    2. £150 for the time taken to trim the hedges on 4 occasions.
    3. £25 for the time taken to contact the landlord about the hedges.
    4. £500 for the inconvenience caused in maintaining the hedges.
35. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 August 2023. It apologised for not maintaining the hedges. The landlord said the resident had paid £70.20 service charge for grounds maintenance for the previous year. The landlord stated this charge covered his contribution for grounds maintenance for the whole estate.
36. The landlord said it would maintain the hedges twice a year, but it was willing to consider transferring the ownership of the hedged area to him. It confirmed the matter would be referred to its legal and assets team.
37. The landlord offered to pay £80 compensation to the resident, which was comprised of:
    1. £20 for the costs of running the hedge trimmer.
    2. £10 for the disposal of the hedge clippings.
    3. £50 for the inconvenience caused in maintaining the hedge.
38. A review of the landlord’s stage 2 response shows it apologised and offered compensation for not maintaining the hedges as per its responsibility. Although the landlord accepted it had not been maintaining the hedges, it inappropriately did not recognise it had failed to conclude this in its stage 1 response.
39. The resident replied to the landlord on 10 August 2023. He said he would only consider accepting the landlord’s compensation offer if it agreed to transfer the hedged area to him for no cost, and if it paid his legal costs for the transfer. 
40. The resident contacted us on 13 September 2023. He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his complaint.
41. The resident has told us no agreement was reached with the landlord regarding the transfer of the hedged area, and it remains the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord has provided us with its records which say it has been maintaining the hedges since its stage 2 response.
42. In summary, the landlord failed to demonstrate it maintained the hedges over a 2-year period. The resident maintained the hedges over this time, and he did not complain about this to the landlord until June 2023. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge not maintaining the hedges when the resident first complained about the matter was unreasonable. The landlord accepted its failings at stage 2 of its complaints process and offered compensation to the resident to for the time, expense and inconvenience caused.
43. The landlord offered £80 compensation for the inconvenience and costs caused as a result of maintaining the hedge. This was because the landlord failed to provide the service it was meant to. The landlord’s offer in the circumstances was fair and equivalent to an amount that would be calculated using our remedies guidance where the impact on the resident included distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. It was a fair amount when compared against the totality of the service charge for the grounds maintenance for the whole estate and put things right for the resident.
44. However, the landlord took too long to recognise its failure to provide the service, as the information to do so was available at stage 1 of its complaints process. The delay amounts to a determination of service failure. The landlord is ordered to pay additional compensation of £50 for the inconvenience caused.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports his garden had been damaged.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports the hedges at the property were not being maintained.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

47. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings in this report.
    2. Pay £130 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports the hedges at the property were not being maintained. The landlord may deduct the sum of £80 awarded as part of its internal complaints procedure, if already paid. The balance outstanding should be paid directly to the resident.
48. The landlord should provide us with evidence of compliance of these orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

49. The landlord is recommended to pay its offer of £210 in compensation to the resident for its handling of his complaints about his garden being damaged when it cut his grass.
50. The landlord is recommended to update the resident on its position regarding whether it is willing to transfer the land where the hedges are situated to him.