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

Sage Housing Limited (SHL) (202300700)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300700

Sage Housing Limited

25 June 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 query about a garden.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured fixed term tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 26 September 2022. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, information provided for this investigation shows that the resident has a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
  2. The property is a one bedroom ground floor maisonette with a flat directly above. The resident’s living room has french doors which give direct access to an enclosed garden at the rear of the property. There is a side gate which also provides access to the garden. The property was a new build at the time of the complaint.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2022 to raise concerns that the property did not reflect the layout shown on the plans. The landlord reviewed the plans and confirmed that the garden was shared with the resident above. The resident expressed concerns for his safety and privacy. By way of response, the landlord said it could split the garden to create 2 individual spaces.
  4. In January 2023 the resident objected to the landlord’s proposal because he felt he should not have to lose part of a garden which he felt was for his sole use. He also remained concerned about his safety and privacy. In April 2023 the landlord reiterated its intention to create 2 gardens and reassured the resident that it would consider his concerns regarding privacy and safety. The landlord carried out works shortly after, installing a picket fence to split the garden and a gate to provide access to the far garden.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 24 January 2023, as follows:
    1. There was no mention of a shared garden in his tenancy agreement.
    2. He was originally offered the upstairs flat but was told it did not come with a garden so he decided to take the ground floor property instead. He therefore could not understand why the landlord told the resident above that the garden was shared.
    3. Due to his own feelings around his personal safety, and the fact his living room was visible from the garden, he did not feel the garden could be shared.
  6. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 28 April 2023, as follows:
    1. The conveyancing plans showed 2 sheds in one garden, meaning it was communal.
    2. The adverts for both the ground and first floor flat said the properties did not have use of a garden which was an error on its part.
    3. It acknowledged that it should have told the resident there was a shared garden to avoid an assumption on his part that the garden was for his sole use.
    4. It said it had learnt from the complaint and that its lettings team would ensure it would specifically address such matters with tenants before they proceeded and would ensure it was specified in the tenancy agreement.
    5. It confirmed its plan to split the garden and include a shed in each. It said it would “ensure feelings of safety and security would not be compromised.”
    6. It offered £300 compensation comprised of:
      1. £150 – for stress and inconvenience caused during the period the resident felt his safety and privacy was compromised.
      2. £150 – for lack of information given by the lettings team when signing his tenancy agreement.
    7. The complaint was partly upheld.
  7. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 3 May 2023. He felt that splitting the garden would leave him with a quarter of what he had which was unreasonable. He said that if the landlord used a picket fence his whole living room would be visible from the garden which was an invasion of privacy. He requested that the garden be designated for his sole use. If not, he would be living in a property which offered different conditions to what he was expecting causing distress. He did not feel that the compensation offered was adequate.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 May 2023 in which it:
    1. Confirmed that both gardens would have their own separate access.
    2. Said it would install a 900 millimetre high picket fence.
    3. Said that the local authority was responsible for the nominations process and that it had been advised that the property did not come with a garden. It acknowledged this was incorrect but said the local authority nominated the resident on the basis it did not have access to a garden.
    4. Had shared the complaint with senior management to identify learning and would ensure that its lettings staff would query any gaps in information provided by its delivery team. It would ensure that it provided full details of the property to the local authority.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 9 August 2023 because the fence the landlord used to split the gardens was too low and he remained concerned about his privacy.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If the complaint is complex, or additional areas of investigation are required, it will contact the resident to confirm its estimated resolution time. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without legitimate reason.

Scope of the investigation

  1. On 6 July 2023 the resident’s doctor wrote a letter of support, highlighting the impact that the landlord’s actions were having on his mental health. While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

 

 

Garden

  1. On 4 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask if the garden was shared. He was concerned that if that were the case, his security would be compromised because his french doors gave direct access. The landlord replied the same day to confirm that, having looked at the plans, the garden was shared between the resident and his upstairs neighbour.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord again on 7 December 2022 to say that the plans did not match the reality of the properties. This was because there was only 1 shed in the garden whereas there were 2 marked on the plans. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would investigate the matter further. Having reviewed photographs which were then provided by the resident the landlord emailed on 23 December to say it would investigate the matter further in the new year.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 January 2023 to say that the garden was shared but it would consider whether it could split it so that both residents could have their own garden. The resident replied on the same day to say he was concerned about his privacy.
  4. During an email exchange with the resident on 6 January 2023 the landlord confirmed that the resident’s tenancy agreement was silent on whether the garden was shared or for his sole use. It said it was sorry for the distress caused to the resident and that it was trying to find a resolution which was satisfactory for both parties.
  5. On 24 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to express his concerns about splitting the gardens including the requirement for the side access gate to be left unlocked. He felt that because the whole side of his living room comprised of the glass french doors his privacy and security would be compromised. He said he had a diagnosis of PTSD following an aggravated burglary at a previous property in which he was assaulted at knife point and a family member was stabbed and kidnapped in front of him.
  6. During the landlord’s phone call to the resident on 9 February 2023 they discussed splitting the gardens and the need to meet the resident’s safety and privacy needs. The resident felt it was unfair that he was losing so much garden, the landlord explained it was trying to balance the needs of both residents.
  7. On 21 and 27 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to provide updates. On 27 April it confirmed that it intended to split the garden.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 28 April 2023 said it had learnt from the complaint and had addressed the issue with its lettings team. This was to ensure that any queries relating to gardens would be clarified with residents before they proceeded with a property. It would also ensure it was set out in tenancy agreements.
  9. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. In its stage 1 complaint response of 28 April 2023 the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the advert for the property was not accurate because it said it did not come with a garden. The landlord accepted its actions had not been fair and appropriately set out its learning from the complaint including what it would do differently.
  10. Having acknowledged its error it tried to put things right by appropriately considering what it could do to reduce the detriment caused to the resident, while balancing its responsibilities towards his upstairs neighbour. It split the garden in a way that gave each resident separate access and provided an additional shed so that both residents had one each.
  11. While it is understandable that the resident was disappointed with this outcome given the options available to the landlord, and its obligations to the resident’s neighbour, this was a reasonable solution which resolved designation of the garden. The landlord also demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns about security by installing a separate access gate to his neighbour’s garden. The evidence also shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s emails and generally kept him updated regarding progress.
  12. However, a key concern raised by the resident throughout his communication with the landlord was a loss of privacy and security. This was related to his diagnosis of PTSD. In its stage 1 complaint response of 28 April 2023 the landlord said that any works carried out to the garden would “ensure feelings of safety and security would not be compromised.” The evidence does not demonstrate that it fully understood the impact of the initial error and subsequent works on the resident as a result of his individual circumstances. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
  13. There is no evidence that the landlord had a discussion with the resident about what his expectations and needs were in relation to safety and security in the context of what it might reasonably be able to achieve. Despite its assurances to the resident the works it carried out failed to allay his concerns because his living room was still clearly visible from both gardens.
  14. It is accepted that due to the size of the garden there were limited options available to the landlord as to how it could split the space. However, it failed to engage in meaningful discussions with the resident to see if they could agree any further options which may improve his ongoing concerns around security and/or privacy. For example, the landlord could have considered fitting blinds or privacy screening to the french doors. The landlord was therefore unable to fulfill its commitment to the resident which was inappropriate because it had not effectively managed his expectations.

Events post internal complaints process

  1. In an email to this Service on 14 June 2024 the resident said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because it did not “preserve his security and privacy.” He was uncomfortable with people outside using the area “watching” him in his living room.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and attempted to put things right. It also demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint. However, it did not go far enough to manage the resident’s expectations about security and privacy which amounts to service failure.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 28 April 2023 offered the resident £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £150 for the failure by the lettings team to provide relevant information at sign up. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Therefore, further compensation has not been ordered.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 24 January 2023 however, the landlord failed to respond. This was inappropriate because it caused the resident time and trouble when he contacted this Service to seek support. We wrote to the landlord on 12 April to request that it provide a response by 19 April.
  2. The landlord replied, also on 12 April 2023, to acknowledge the complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days which was 26 April. In a telephone call to the resident dated 18 April the landlord said it would provide a response on 21 April which was agreed by the resident. However, both dates were outside of the timescale set by this Service which further prolonged the process.
  3. On 27 April 2023 the landlord emailed this Service to say it was unable to issue the response on 21 April and requested a 10 day extension to 5 May. It confirmed that the resident had agreed the new date. This would give the landlord 71 working days to provide a complaint response. It is unclear why the landlord took so long to provide a response and therefore the delay was unreasonable.
  4. The Ombudsman dispute resolutions principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 April 2023, 67 working days later and 57 working days over its target response time. It is concerning that the response was only issued following intervention from this Service. The delay was unreasonable, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. Furthermore, it failed to address the delay in its stage 1 complaint response and failed to provide redress in the form of an apology and/or compensation.
  5. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 3 May 2023. The landlord’s complaint response dated 18 May was appropriately issued within time.
  6. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about a garden.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss whether there are any other options that might resolve his ongoing concerns about security and privacy. This should include consideration of any reasonable adjustments to the property and housing options advice. The outcome should be confirmed to the resident and this Service in writing, also within 4 weeks.