Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202322133)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322133

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

12 March 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:
   1. The resident’s concerns about maintaining the shared lawn.
   2. The resident’s reports of his neighbour leaving rubbish in the shared garden.
2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is the ground floor flat in a semi-detached property split into 2 flats. He has lived there since February 2011. He has a disability, however the landlord says it was not made aware of this prior to the complaint.
4. On 22 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to cut the back garden. It told him that it could do this for a £40 charge per cut. On 5 September the resident raised a complaint. He said that his upstairs neighbour was not helping to maintain the garden and had dumped rubbish in it. On 21 September he also complained about the landlord’s proposal to charge for cutting the grass. He said it had not charged him in the past.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 November 2023, in which it said the service charges paid by the resident did not cover cutting the back garden. It said this garden was not classed as communal as the property only had 2 flats.
6. The resident’s councillor contacted the landlord on 16 November 2023 to say that he remained unhappy. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 December in which it said:
   1. It was unable to continue to cut the grass free of charge as its upkeep was part of his tenancy agreement.
   2. It agreed to cut it free of charge as a one-off goodwill gesture.
   3. It had spoken with the resident about maintaining the garden at the cost of £40 per visit, split between him and his neighbour.
   4. It had asked the neighbour to move the rubbish left in the garden.
7. The resident contacted us on 2 January 2024 and asked us to investigate as he remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

Lawn maintenance

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not provide any information about the garden. However, following a request for clarification from the resident, the landlord wrote to the resident about the garden on 25 July 2013. This letter confirmed that both the resident and his upstairs neighbour have access to the rear garden, and it is a shared garden. It said that both residents were responsible for maintaining it to a reasonable standard.
9. The landlord told us that the area was being managed by another organisation previously. It said it is likely that it did fund several grass cuts in the past, although it could not confirm how many. It said that as the property had come back under its management it could no longer offer ongoing maintenance.
10. The landlord has provided a breakdown of the service charges paid by the resident and a plan of the area. This shows that the current service charge does not pay for maintaining the property’s garden. From the information provided it is reasonable to conclude that the resident, along with the neighbour, is responsible for upkeep of the lawn.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 August 2023 to enquire about getting the back lawn cut as he said the landlord had done it in the past. The landlord conducted a site visit on 28 August and told the resident that it could cut the lawn for a charge of £40. The resident wrote to this service on 10 September 2023 saying that he was unhappy that the landlord was proposing to charge him, and not the neighbour, as he was the one who had asked for help.
12. On 18 September 2023, the resident told the landlord he thought the service charge he paid was for garden maintenance. On 21 September he asked to raise a complaint about its proposal to charge him for cutting the lawn. In its stage 1 response of 3 November the landlord said that it did not cut the grass under the service charge. It enclosed the plan of the area showing what areas were and were not maintained by it. It did not give him a breakdown of what his service charge did pay for, which would have been helpful for it to clarify.
13. On 16 November 2023, the resident’s councillor contacted the landlord and said the resident remained unhappy. They said he had a disability and was having difficulty taking care of the large back garden.
14. In its stage 2 response of 18 December 2023 the landlord said it had visited the resident at his home on 22 November. It said it did understand that it was a large garden, and why he had concerns about maintaining it, given his level of mobility. It agreed to conduct a one–off cut free of charge, which was completed on 12 December.
15. It said it could not continue to cut the lawn for free, and it was his responsibility to arrange for it to be maintained. It said it could maintain it at a cost of £40 per visit split between him and his neighbour. However, it did not provide any detail about how it would collect this money, or whether it would contact the neighbour to confirm their agreement. This was not appropriate, as it was not reasonable to for it to expect the resident to negotiate with his neighbour.
16. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it took any further action until it wrote to the resident on 3 September 2024. It said it was meeting with the resident and the neighbour that week to discuss the cost of cutting the grass. We have not seen any evidence to show this meeting went ahead. The resident has let us know that no agreement has been reached with him, the landlord, and the neighbour. He told us he has paid for a further one–off cut to be done, independently from the landlord, but bore the full cost of this himself.
17. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about maintaining the shared lawn. The information provided shows that the resident and the neighbour are responsible for upkeep of the lawn. However, it is evident that for some years the landlord did conduct maintenance free of charge.
18. The landlord set an expectation with this action. When it realised it could no longer do this, and the resident raised reasonable concerns about this, it should have taken responsibility for finding a solution and followed through with this. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to charge for cutting the lawn, however it was not reasonable for it to expect the resident to liaise with the neighbour to arrange this.
19. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his concerns about maintaining the lawn. An order has also been made for the landlord to consider its options to assist the resident with maintenance of the lawn, in a way that does not involve the resident having to liaise with the neighbour himself for payment. The landlord should confirm its proposal in writing.

Removal of rubbish from garden

20. The tenancy agreement says that residents must keep shared and communal areas clean and free from rubbish. It says that the landlord will remove anything left in shared and communal areas and may charge the resident responsible for its reasonable costs for doing so.
21. The resident called the landlord on 5 September 2023 to say he was unhappy that his neighbour had dumped rubbish in the garden and would not move it. The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the neighbour on 13 September and they said they were happy to pay for the landlord to remove the items.
22. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not comment on this issue. On 6 December 2023, the landlord left the neighbour a note asking them to make contact with it to pay for the removal of the items. This was a reasonable action for it to take.
23. In its stage 2 response of 18 December 2023 the landlord said that it had asked the neighbour to remove the items and asked him to let it know if the items were not moved. This put the onus back on the resident to follow up with the issue, which was not appropriate. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it followed up with the neighbour after 6 December 2023 and on 6 February 2024 the resident told us the rubbish still had not been moved.
24. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of his neighbour leaving rubbish in the shared garden. While it was initially proactive in making contact with the neighbour, it did not follow up on this. It did not act in line with the provision in the tenancy agreement for it to remove the items and recharge the neighbour afterwards, which it should have done.
25. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to him by this issue. An order has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident to find out if the items have been removed. If not, the landlord should contact the neighbour to arrange this.

Complaint handling

26. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will send its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At both stages it may agree a 10-working day extension in exceptional circumstances.
28. The resident first raised a complaint about the rubbish in the garden on 5 September 2023. We have seen no evidence that the landlord logged a complaint at this time. On 21 September, the resident said he also wanted to complain about the charge for cutting the grass. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 9 October, which was outside its policy timescale. It said it aimed to respond by 24 October.
29. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 October 2032 to say it needed more time, however it did not provide a reason in line with its complaints policy. It said it aimed to respond by 7 November. It sent its stage 1 response on 3 November, almost 2 months after he first complained, which represented an unreasonable delay. Its stage 1 response only addressed the charge for cutting the grass and did not comment on the rubbish in the garden, which it should have done.
30. The resident’s councillor contacted the landlord on 16 November 2023 to let it know he remained unhappy. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 20 November and said it would respond by 18 December. It did send its stage 2 response on this date, and this response addressed both issues raised, which was reasonable.
31. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to log his initial complaint, or address this in its stage 1 complaint, and took too long to respond at stage 1. It also failed to acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses.
32. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about maintaining the shared lawn.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
       1. The resident’s reports of his neighbour leaving rubbish in the shared garden.
       2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

34. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, broken down as follows:
    1. £200 in relation to the lawn maintenance.
    2. £100 in relation to the items left in the garden.
    3. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
35. The landlord to apologise in writing for the failings identified within this report.
36. The landlord to consider its options to assist the resident with maintenance of the lawn, in a way that does not involve the resident having to liaise with the neighbour himself for payment. The landlord should confirm its proposal in writing to the resident and this Service.
37. The landlord to contact the resident to find out if the items have been removed. If not, the landlord should take action to arrange this.
38. The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.