Town and Country Housing (202231392)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231392

Town and Country Housing

3 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

The complaint is about the resident’s request for the landlord to:
1. Remove her garage.
2. Erect some additional fencing at the property.
3. Install a front gate.
4. Repair her damaged driveway.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord who is a housing association. She moved into the property in August 2022 via a mutual exchange, and lives with her 2 children
The resident reported several repairs shortly after moving into the property in August 2022. As part of dealing with these repairs the landlord recorded that the garage should be removed as it contained asbestos.
On 8 November 2022 the resident raised a complaint using the landlord’s online complaint form. The resident complained that she had been waiting for the garage to be removed and that the delay in doing this was stopping other repairs to her fencing. She also requested that the landlord erect a new fence along her front garden, repair her driveway, secure her back garden once the garage was removed, and install a front gate.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It advised that a contractor for the garage removal was still in the process of being appointed, that it would install a 1.2 metre privacy fence, and that it would not install a front gate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 November 2022 and stated:
1. The landlord had advised it would secure her garden with fencing when the garage was removed, but this had yet to be confirmed.
2. She had not received a date for the garage removal despite this being inspected in September 2022.
3. The previous tenants had removed a front gate, and the landlord should replace this for her.
4. Repairs were required to her driveway.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2022. It advised that:
1. It was waiting for a quote from an approved contractor to remove the garage as asbestos had been found.
2. There was no fence in place when the resident agreed to the mutual exchange, but it had agreed to provide a standard 1.2-metre-high fence which would be installed in the gap left after the removal of the garage.
3. The resident was aware there was no front gate when she decided to complete a mutual exchange and so it was not required to install a front gate for her. It explained that the resident could install one at her own cost.
4. It had discussed the request to repair the driveway with its repairs manager, and it would aim to complete this repair within 28 days.
On 29 January 2023 the landlord provided an update on the repairs. It stated that the garage removal was taking longer than expected due to having to arrange a specialist contractor. It also advised that its building repair manager had reviewed the driveway, and as this was in a repairable condition it had instructed its contractor to complete repairs rather than replacing the whole driveway.
The landlord provided further updates on 8 and 9 February 2023. It explained that:
1. The removal of the garage was scheduled for 10 February 2023.
2. It would not be renewing the driveway. Instead, there would be small patch repairs made where required and it would mark up the areas to be repaired on 10 February 2023.
3. It had agreed to erect a 1.2-metre-high fence in the gap left by the garage removal, and it would try to get this work completed at the same time.
4. It would not be installing a front gate as explained in its stage 2 complaint response letter.
On 14 February 2023 the landlord updated the resident to advise that since October 2022 she had reported a high number of repairs and requested improvement works that were approved to remove the garage and reconfigure her kitchen. It stated that due to the money already spent on improvement works it would not be installing any new fencing other than the 1.2-meter privacy panel, nor would it do any work to the driveway. This was because its building safety manager had visited the property on 10 February 2023 and assessed that the driveway was safe to use. The landlord said that it would arrange for an independent surveyor to inspect the property so they could see if any further repairs were required.
The resident submitted a new complaint on 14 February 2023. She complained that repairs to her driveway were reported in November 2022 and despite telling her multiple times that this repair would be completed, the landlord had now changed its mind. She also complained that the landlord had promised to make her garden secure after the garage was removed and this had not been done.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said that:
1. It had not communicated effectively in respect of the requested work to the driveway, which had led to the resident’s expectations being mismanaged.
2. It’s correspondence initially indicated that it would complete work to the driveway, but subsequently it found that it could not resurface or carry out patchwork to the driveway due to the high cost.
3. It had completed work to erect a privacy fence and infill some areas of the driveway with stones.
4. No gate or gulley would be installed at the property.
5. To acknowledge its ineffective communication, it would pay £100 in compensation and would arrange for an independent surveyor to visit on 28 February 2023 to assess the property for repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint, and the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 23 March 2023. It stated that it agreed with the response provided at stage 1 and reiterated the offer of £100 compensation for ineffective communication.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to boundary walls, gates and fences owned by the landlord. It is also responsible for integral garages and principal pathways, or other means of access, but not general garden maintenance such as patios and shrubbery.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy sets out that residents take a property ‘as seen’. This includes the new tenant being responsible for alterations or improvements that the previous tenant may have made.
The landlord’s repairs policy gives a 28 calendar day timescale to complete a non-urgent repair.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where a resident has experienced minor disruption it may make a payment of between £50 and £250. For moderate disruption it may make a payment of between £250 and £700.

Garage removal

Both parties agree that after an inspection in September 2022 it was decided that the resident’s garage would be removed due to the discovery of asbestos. Despite this being highlighted by the landlord in September 2022, the resident had to chase several times between November 2022 and February 2023 before an appointment was confirmed for 10 February 2023. The landlord’s failure to be proactive in its communication and reluctance to provide any clear timescales caused the resident some avoidable distress.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response issued on 22 December 2022, it apologised as no timescale was given to the resident for the work to be completed, nor had it kept her updated about the removal. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failure as part of its complaint process.
However, the landlord continued to make the same errors following the stage 2 response. The resident had to chase the landlord again on 19, 20, 23 and 25 January 2023, before she received an update to explain that an appointment was taking longer than expected because a specialist contractor was required. This shows that the landlord did not learn from the failings it had identified in its stage 2 complaint response. This added to the frustration and anxiety the resident felt.
In addition to the poor communication, the removal took 5 months to be completed. As the garage was not an integral garage, it was not covered under the usual repair responsibilities set out in the tenancy agreement or repairs policy. However, the garage was identified as “unsound and beyond repair” by the landlord and asbestos had been found in the structure. Even allowing for additional time to find a specialist contractor to deal with the removal, this is still an excessive length of time for the resident to be left with a garage that was not fit for use and potentially dangerous. This was especially the case as the resident lives with 2 children who at the time were aged 1 and 8 years old. Considering all the circumstances above, this amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman considers a payment of £250 is appropriate to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience the resident suffered, which is in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy for moderate disruption.

Fencing

The landlord responded to the resident’s request for new fencing on several occasions. It advised that it would install a 1.2 metre high fence as a privacy panel to fill the gap left by the garage removal, but that it would not install any other additional fencing. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable. It responded to the requests for new fencing quickly and the response remained consistent with the repair responsibilities set out in the tenancy agreement. As these were requests for new fencing rather than fences that already existed and were owned by the landlord it had no obligation to agree to this request.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2022 the landlord dealt again with the request for new fencing. It stated that there was no fence when the resident agreed to the mutual exchange and therefore, it would only add a fence to the property to fill the gap left by the garage. This explanation is in keeping with its policy for a mutual exchange which the resident agreed to and which says that she would take the property ‘as seen’.
The landlord was under no obligation to install new fencing other than the 1.2 metre fence to fill the gap left by the garage removal. As the landlord explained this clearly and their actions were consistent with the relevant policies there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint.

Front gate

After the resident requested installation of a front gate as part of her initial complaint, the landlord responded on 15 November 2022 and stated that no front gate would be installed. This was because it would only replace or fit a gate if there was one already at the property. The reason given for refusing to install a front gate was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repair responsibilities set out in the tenancy agreement, as well as its mutual exchange policy of taking the property ‘as seen’.
The landlord went on to advise that the resident could request permission from her neighbourhood officer to have a front gate installed at her own cost. It provided full details on how to do this in its stage 2 complaint response dated 22 December 2022. The actions of the landlord were fair and provided the resident with a suitable alternative if she wanted a gate installed.
The resident made another request for the landlord to install a front gate on 7 February 2023 as part of her a new complaint. The landlord’s reply remained consistent with the information provided in its earlier complaint responses. This was reasonable as no new information about the issue had been provided by the resident. Considering all the circumstances, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.

Damaged driveway

The landlord responded on several occasions to the resident’s request to repair her driveway between 22 December 2022 and 13 February 2023. It stated that it would either replace, retarmac or complete some patch repairs to the driveway, but this falsely raised the resident’s expectations as on 14 February 2023 it said no work would be completed due to the high cost. Instead, the landlord agreed to infill some areas with stones. This caused some unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair policy do not contain any explicit information on who is responsible for maintaining the driveway. However, in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 24 February 2023 it indicated that the driveway was not part of its repair obligations. It stated that it would not “repair or maintain anything that’s been installed by the previous resident”. The landlord acknowledged that it should have told the resident that she was responsible for the driveway at the start of her tenancy and that any work to the driveway would be classed as an ‘improvement’ rather than a repair. However, as there is no express duty placed on the landlord to maintain the driveway, its refusal to carry out any work was fair and reasonable.
As part of the landlord’s complaint response on 24 February 2023 it acknowledged it should have been clear in its communication at an earlier stage and that its ineffective communication led to the resident’s expectations being different to what the landlord could provide. The landlord offered a payment of £100 in compensation to recognise the impact that this caused. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident and offer a suitable remedy.
The resident has advised that as a resolution she wants some work carried out to her driveway, but when considering if a remedy is fair, it is important to look at what position the resident would have been in had the landlord’s service been reasonable. In this instance, the failing identified was to do with the landlord’s communication rather than the refusal to carry out work on the driveway. This means that even if the landlord had communicated effectively then the decision to refuse the work would have remained the same.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the remedy offered by the landlord of £100 was reasonable redress. This is because it fairly and proportionately recognises the communication failing for this complaint. The offer is also in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy for instances of minor disruption caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to:
1. Erect some additional fencing.
2. Install a front gate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s garage.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair her damaged driveway.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident to acknowledge the maladministration identified.
2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation for the time, effort and inconvenience caused in respect of the garage removal.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £100 if it has not already done so in respect of the driveway complaint.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repair policy and information on its website relating to repairs and considers adding a specific section regarding maintenance responsibilities for driveways.