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

Torus62 Limited (202232490)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232490

Torus62 Limited

4 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 the resident’s:
    1. Report that a patch of land bordering the property is in poor condition, and that this has led to maintenance issues and an infestation of rats.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 3 bedroom house, on an assured non-shorthold tenancy since 2009. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The rear garden borders an owner-occupied property (the neighbour) with no connection to the landlord. The neighbour erected a fence in the wrong place, resulting in a land locked space bordering the resident’s property, that was not being maintained. The landlord does not own this piece of land nor does it have a right of entry to the land. The complaint concerns weed growth encroaching from the neighbour’s land in to the resident’s garden.
  3. On 25 January 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident as she had reported Japanese Knotweed coming in to her garden from the land locked space and rats nesting in overgrown areas. She said she had been told the area would be treated, so the landlord said it would make enquiries and update her.
  4. Having not heard back from the landlord, the resident complained on 5 August 2022. She said the situation had been ongoing for a long time and she had spent a lot of money trying to control the problem. She had not been updated, despite Environmental Health visiting in March 2022 and saying she would be contacted.
  5. The landlord spoke with the resident on 19 August 2022 and arranged for a contractor to attend the same day and it said it would arrange for pest control to attend.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 August 2022 it said the area of land behind her garden had been created by the boundary line being adjusted and it was going to investigate who owned it. Its contractor had confirmed there was no Japanese Knotweed present so it could not take any further action. However, it accepted there had been a service failure with its communication, and offered £50 compensation.
  7. Pest control attended on 3 September 2022 and recommended that overgrowth should be cut back. External bait traps were laid and, although one was triggered, nothing was caught. Traps were reset but the landlord says access to the property could not be obtained and the job was closed on 25 November 2022.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 and 28 April 2023 and 12 May 2023 as the issue remained unresolved. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 25 May 2023. In the meantime, the resident asked her MP for assistance and the MP asked the landlord, on 7 June 2023, to look in to her concerns.
  9. The landlord spoke with the resident on 26 June 2023 and followed this up with an email confirming a site visit would take place on 30 June 2023 and it would respond to her complaint after that, by 3 July 2023.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 July 2023 it:
    1. Set out the details of an agreement made at the site visit.
    2. Apologised that the stage 1 response was lacking as the condition of the garden should have been dealt with more effectively.
    3. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns and that “Marestail” was growing on the paved area, but explained there was limited treatment on the market to irradicate this and it would be for her to constantly maintain that.
    4. Confirmed approval of a “one-off clearance of the rear garden to bring it to an acceptable standard which would include clearing all weeds, shrubs, and vegetation and would be in touch to agree a time. The ground would be treated and levelled off and grass seed put down”. Once done, it would arrange for the Assets department to visit and review any additional works required, but there was no guarantee any would take place. The resident would then need to keep on top of the maintenance.
    5. The Land Registry confirmed the neighbour owned the land that backed on to the garden, and they would maintain it and move the boundary back.
    6. Made an additional offer of £100 compensation to reflect the limited investigation carried out previously.
  11. Work was scheduled on 20 July 2022 but access to the garden could not be obtained, so it was rescheduled to 3 August 2022. The landlord updated the MP on 11 August 2023 and, having been contacted by the resident on 22 September 2023, it explained on 26 September 2023 that the agreed work had been completed. However, it noted the resident wanted the garden rotovated and all roots removed.
  12. A surveyor attended on 26 October 2023 and the landlord says photographs show the garden was overgrown which indicates it was not being maintained. Notes from that visit say the resident wanted further works which she said had been promised including using a mini digger to rotavate/turn over the soil and remove all traces of weeds and vegetation from the previous occupant’s allotments after which she would grass seed it and maintain it going forward. It noted that would be “extensive, expensive and require planning to resolve the issues mentioned”.
  13. However, the surveyor did suggest removing some roots on the garden perimeter, but it was explained this was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord says the resident wanted slabs lifted and re-laid and Marestail treated. However, the Greenspaces Team that attended said there was no completely effective treatment on the market and the only solution to manage the weeds was for the resident to pull the Marestail out herself when it appeared and apply weedkiller. Her request was therefore refused.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 November 2023 about what further action it was going to take. The landlord offered to remove some roots from the garden’s perimeter but explained this was not something it would normally do as the garden was her responsibility as per the Occupancy Agreement. The landlord’s records of 25 January 2024 show the resident declined the suggested works as she felt it was not sufficient. As the extent of the works could not be agreed, no work was done.
  15. The resident remains unhappy as she feels the issue has not been addressed and the landlord has not done what it said it would. On 17 November 2024 the landlord wrote to the MP and said “Considering the ongoing issues, I have arranged to meet with the relevant service areas …..  to review this case on Wednesday 20th November 24. I will provide you and [the resident] with a further update following this meeting”. The landlord has confirmed it has no evidence of the resident or MP being updated as promised, but no further works were actually done as the scope could not be agreed.
  16. The resident has said a Housing Officer attended in January 2025 and said they were looking in to the matter further, and another visit was planned on 24 February 2025, with a surveyor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she reported concerns with her garden as a result of the condition it was left in by a former tenant, since 2009, when she moved in to the property. While this is noted, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from January 2022 onwards that were considered during the recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. Since making her complaint, the resident has also mentioned issues with fly tipping, bed bugs and the foundations of the property. She has also said she wants to make a possible claim against the landlord for issues with her flooring and for a new wardrobe. These did not form part of the original complaint so cannot be considered here. However, in the event these are still issues for the resident, she can raise them as a new complaint but would need to exhaust the landlord’s 2 stage complaints process before referring the matter back to us, if needed.

Report that a patch of land bordering the property is in poor condition, and that this has led to maintenance issues and an infestation of rats

  1. The resident says she has spent several thousand pounds over the years on maintaining her garden as a result of overgrowth from the neighbouring property. Having reviewed the photographs provided, as well as viewing the property using Google Earth, it is clear the bottom of the resident’s garden borders another property and a fence has been erected in front of the boundary fence on the neighbour’s side, creating a small strip of land that does have overgrowth.
  2. The Occupancy Agreement makes it clear it is for the resident to maintain her own garden, which means keeping it tidy and free of rubbish. The landlord established that the strip of land that was not being maintained was not its responsibility and was owned by the owner-occupier of the property to the rear. It then took steps to speak with them to explain there was an issue, and was told they would move the boundary line back. This information was then fed back to the resident.
  3. The resident has said the neighbour has laid flagstones in the garden which has forced overgrowth in to her garden. However, the landlord is not in a position to tell the owner-occupier what they can and cannot do in their own garden.
  4. The landlord’s website states if a resident has an issue with rats, they would need to contact the local authority, and it provides details on how to do that. It was therefore not the landlord’s responsibility to investigate whether there was a rat infestation, and it could have simply signposted the resident to the local authority. Instead, it arranged for Pest Control to attend and traps were laid, but no infestation was found.
  5. The landlord was not responsible for carrying out any maintenance in the resident’s garden, or on the strip of land behind it. However, it did take the resident’s concerns seriously and took reasonable steps to investigate the matter and to try to resolve the problems she was having. There was a delay in the landlord not updating the resident after speaking with her in January 2022, but this lack of communication was openly accepted by the landlord and it made an offer of £50 compensation, which was appropriate.
  6. Despite the landlord not being obliged to maintain the garden, it did tell the resident it would arrange a “one-off clearance” of the rear garden to bring it to an acceptable standard which would include clearing all weeds, shrubs, and vegetation and it would be in touch to agree a time. It also attempted to manage her expectations by explaining she would have to constantly maintain the garden, including removing the Marestail that was growing through from the neighbouring property.
  7. The clearance work took place but a surveyor visit on 26 October 2023 reported the garden was overgrown and not being maintained. This is where a dispute seems to have occurred as the resident wanted the garden rotavated, but the surveyor would not agree to using a mini digger/rotavator in the garden, in part due to the expense. Instead, an offer to remove plants on the periphery was made, but declined by the resident, as she felt it was not going far enough.
  8. It is clear the resident feels the landlord should have done more to help her, and it is noted she says she has spent a lot of money maintaining the garden. However, the photographs provided show after the garden clearance it became overgrown again and that there is tarpaulin or membrane broken up, and no real soil for grass seed to take to. While the garden may benefit from being rotavated, there is no evidence of the landlord agreeing to do that work, and there is certainly no obligation for it to do so. Despite that, it has arranged a Pest Control report and trapping, carried out research at the Land Registry, spoken with the neighbour, carried out a clean up of the garden and offered to remove some of the roots on the edge of the garden.
  9. The landlord told the resident she was responsible for maintaining the garden when the overgrowth and rat issue was reported. However, rather than explaining why it was not responsible for addressing that and signposting her, it took steps to deal with it. While this was a helpful approach, it seems to have given the resident the impression that the landlord had accepted responsibility for addressing it, and this has led to her continuing to revert back to it with the same concerns. Therefore, the landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations over its responsibilities better from the start, and throughout. This is something it could learn from in the future
  10. As it is, it is important to recognise that the landlord went above and beyond to assist the resident, when there was no obligation on it to do all that it did. It accepted its communication fell short and offered a remedy of £50 at stage 1, which at the time was proportionate and reasonable. However, its communication after that has also fallen short at times.
  11. Having said it would update the resident and MP following a meeting on 20 November 2024, the landlord failed to do so. In addition, despite saying it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden, it has continued to attend the property and make arrangements for a further visit this year, without being clear on what basis it is doing that, if it feels it has done all it can. The lack of clarity has left the resident assuming further work will be considered or even carried out.
  12. The landlord’s communication has therefore not always been clear, but this has to be balanced with the fact that it has carried out work that it did not need to do. Therefore, the communication issues amount to a service failure. While the offer of £50 compensation at stage 1 went some way to acknowledging that, as there have been further issues, increasing the offer of compensation to £100 is a fairer a remedy in the circumstances, and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 after 13 working days, just missed the 10 working day timeframe set out in its Complaints policy. It also failed to acknowledge the delay within the response itself.
  2. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 25 May 2023 and, although the landlord spoke with the resident on 26 June 2023 and told her she would get a response by 3 July 2023, which she did, it had already missed the 20 working day deadline as per its Complaints policy when it made contact.
  3. While it is good to see the landlord apologised that its stage 1 response was lacking, and offered additional compensation, it clearly failed to adhere to its Complaints policy at both stages and did not address that in either of its responses. This indicates it did not recognise the delays or learn from its mistakes. It also only provided details of who owned the land when the resident escalated the complaint, which suggests this may have also been overlooked.
  4. It is important to note though, that the complaint responses at each stage were only delayed by a few days and there is no evidence of the resident chasing the landlord, although she did contact her MP for assistance. Taking all this in to account the landlord’s shortcomings did not affect the overall outcome, nor did they adversely affect the resident.
  5. Therefore, this would amount to a service failure, and in accordance with our Remedies guidance, compensation of up to £100 would be a fair and reasonable remedy in the circumstances. That amount has already been offered by the landlord to reflect flaws in its complaint handling. Therefore, we find that the landlord has made an offer which is reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that a patch of land bordering the property is in poor condition, and that this has led to maintenance issues and an infestation of rats
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered at stage 1) for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its poor communication in relation to the maintenance of a patch of land bordering the property,

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the additional £100 compensation offered in its stage 2 response of 3 July 2023 (if it has not already), as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.