West Northamptonshire Council (202300245)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300245

West Northamptonshire Council

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports that a fire escape was blocked by overgrown vegetation and a vandalised door.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since June 2013. The property is a 1–bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident told the landlord on 28 June 2022 that his neighbour’s garden was overgrown. He reported this again on 30 January 2023. The landlord replied on 31 January 2023 and said it was the neighbour’s responsibility.
On 20 February 2023, the resident reported the overgrown garden again. He also said a neighbour had glued shut a communal fire door. He said this was a risk if there was a fire.
The resident complained on 3 April 2023 that the landlord was doing nothing about the overgrown garden. He also said a fire door had been vandalised and he did not feel safe in his home.
In its complaint response on 19 April 2023, the landlord said it was looking at doing a one-off cut back of vegetation, but gardens were residents’ responsibility. It said it would remind residents about this. On the door, it said it understood the risk and would do repairs. It said it would speak to residents about the glue and would give a warning to anyone found to be responsible.
The resident escalated his complaint on 2 June 2023. He said the landlord had done nothing about the overgrown vegetation and the situation had got worse. On 8 June 2023 the landlord told the resident its contractors were not able to cut back the vegetation and it was looking at other options.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 5 September 2023 as the resident had not had a response to his escalated complaint.
In its final response on 11 September 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It said it had reminded residents about their garden responsibilities but was looking to clear vegetation from paths. On the door, it said it had discussed this with a neighbour but as there continued to be problems, it was looking at legal action. It said it was sorry it had not updated the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said vegetation was blocking the fire escape through the garden and the landlord had not told him when it would clear paths. He said he expected the landlord to get residents to cut back their gardens or arrange for someone to do it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has seen records showing the resident reported problems with overgrown vegetation since 2020. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman will look at the landlord’s actions in the 12 months before the resident made a complaint in April 2023. This is because under paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters the resident did not raise as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Because of this, the Ombudsman will not investigate the landlord’s actions before April 2022.

The landlord’s handling of reports that a fire escape was blocked by overgrown vegetation and a vandalised door

The tenancy agreement says a resident must keep their garden in a clean and tidy condition. It says residents must not allow any hedge, shrub, or tree to overhang pavements, common parts, or a neighbour’s garden, or in any other way cause a nuisance or hazard to other residents. A nuisance may include not cutting grass, bushes, shrubs, or trees in their garden.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says the landlord recognises that some gardens are extensive and because of this some residents might not be able to look after their garden. In these cases, it says it offers support or signposts to a third party, who may be able to help. It says it proactively inspects gardens.
Landlords are responsible under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for making sure their properties are fire safe. Landlords must do regular risk assessments of common areas to ensure they meet fire safety standards.
The resident was concerned the landlord did not resolve what he said was a fire safety risk. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to decide whether a property meets fire safety regulations. This is the responsibility of the fire service. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in a reasonable manner.
The landlord’s records show the resident raised concerns about overgrown vegetation on 28 June 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen records showing whether the landlord responded to this report.
When the resident raised concerns again on 30 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2023 and told him it was residents’ responsibility to keep their gardens tidy. The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable response as the tenancy agreement makes it clear that keeping gardens tidy is the responsibility of residents. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord contacted other residents after the report on 30 January 2023. As the resident had reported overgrown vegetation before, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to remind residents about their responsibilities at this time.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 February 2023 about overgrown vegetation. He also said someone had glued the rear exit door shut. On 7 March 2023, the resident told the fire service he no longer felt safe in his home. He wanted the fire service to get the landlord to act on his concerns. The fire service contacted the landlord, and following this the landlord did a fire risk assessment on 8 March 2023. This found there was no risk with the path as it was external and “already a place of ultimate safety”. On the glued door, it said there was another accessible means of escape.
Although the Ombudsman cannot comment on the findings of the risk assessment, we have found it was reasonable for the landlord to quickly respond to the fire service’s communication and do a risk assessment in response to concerns raised. However, it is unclear whether the landlord shared the findings with the resident, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s records on 14 March 2023 show it did an inspection on 7 February 2023 and found someone had glued a door shut. The records say it raised a repair, which it completed. The records say it went back to the property and found the door glued shut again, and it would visit during week starting 20 March 2023 to do another inspection. The Ombudsman has not seen a record showing the dates when the landlord first repaired the door and when it found further damage. However, it is clear the landlord acted reasonably once it became aware of a problem with the door as it did regular checks.
On 3 April 2023, the resident complained about the overgrown vegetation and the door. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 April 2023. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord contacted the resident between 20 February and 6 April 2023. The Ombudsman has found this was a failure to keep the resident updated about the problems he had reported.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 April 2023 about overgrown vegetation. It said gardens were residents’ responsibility but because they had been “neglected for a long time” it was looking to see if it could clear the gardens. On the glued door, it said if there was a fire, the resident could exit through the front entrance.
In its complaint response on 19 April 2023, the landlord confirmed it was looking to arrange a one-off cut of vegetation by its contractors. It said it would remind residents about their responsibilities. On the door, it said it had found it glued shut again on 18 April 2023. It said it had given general fire safety advice on 11 April 2023 but recognised the potential risk of the door not working. It said it was visiting later in the week to fix the door and find out who had caused the damage.
The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable response at this stage as the landlord recognised the gardens had become overgrown and offered a possible solution. This raised an expectation that the landlord would do work. The response also recognised the concerns about the blocked door and said it would act to stop the problem happening again. However, it would have been helpful if the landlord had given the resident a timescale on when it would do work on the overgrown vegetation.
The landlord told the resident on 25 April 2023 that it repaired the door again on 20 April 2023. It said it had made enquiries about who was gluing the door on 24 April 2023 and would do its best to ensure it did not happen again. It asked the resident to report any further damage to the door. A fire risk assessment on 18 May 2023 found the door in working order.
On 2 June 2023 the resident told the landlord the overgrown vegetation had got worse, and he wanted to escalate his complaint.
The landlord sent a letter to residents on 5 June 2023 reminding them of their responsibility under the tenancy agreement to keep their gardens tidy. It provided information about its gardening service and said it would review the situation in 4 weeks time and if there was no improvement it would take legal action. The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take as it reminded residents of their responsibilities and provided information on support available. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could have sent this letter sooner as the resident had been raising concerns for several months by this time.
On 7 June 2023 the landlord told the resident again that it was looking at a possible one off cut back of vegetation. However, the next day it said its contractors were too busy to do the work and it was looking at other options. It gave no indication on timescales.
Records show the landlord wrote to a neighbour on 14 August 2023 about the door. It said it had warned the neighbour but despite this it had found the door glued shut again on 10 August 2023. It said it would consider taking legal action against the neighbour. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable and proportionate step for the landlord to take in the circumstances as any action it took needed to be evidence based and follow warnings.
In its final response on 11 September 2023, the landlord said it was dealing with the door and was now looking at legal action, but this could take time. It said it had followed its procedures but was sorry it had not kept the resident updated. It said it had discussed the door with its fire officer who had said the flats had 2 exits and so there was a means of escape. On the gardens, it said it had reminded residents about their responsibilities. It said its contractor was not able to do work in resident’s gardens, but it would look at whether they could clear walkways.
The Ombudsman agrees that residents are responsible for looking after their gardens, as this is clearly set out in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement also acknowledges that overgrown gardens can be a nuisance, and residents must not allow this to happen. If they do, the landlord says they may be in breach of their tenancy agreement. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says it will check whether gardens are causing a nuisance.
When the resident reported the overgrown vegetation in June 2022, it is unclear whether the landlord responded. The landlord did respond quickly to the resident’s report in January 2023, when it said gardens were residents’ responsibility. However, the landlord did not contact other residents about the overgrown gardens until 5 June 2023. This was a year after the June 2022 report and a failure by the landlord to remind residents of their responsibility in a timely way.
When the resident reported the problem again on 20 February 2023, the landlord did not respond until the resident complained on 3 April 2023. The Ombudsman has found this was a failure to respond to the resident’s concerns.
In its communications on 11 April, 19 April, and 7 June 2023, the landlord gave a clear impression it would arrange work to clear the vegetation. In its final response it also said it would do some work. However, in March 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman there was still overgrown vegetation. Although the landlord was not responsible for the work, it had clearly said it would do work and had raised expectations. In addition, except for the letter to residents on 5 June 2023, there is no evidence the landlord took other action to ensure residents met the obligations in their tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman has found that this was a further communication failure by the landlord.
The landlord accepted it had not kept the resident updated in its final response. However, it did not sufficiently recognise the frustration this caused the resident, who was concerned for his safety. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the communication failures set out in this report amount to service failure. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds service failure when there has been a minor failure. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the failure to communicate effectively about the overgrown vegetation and the inconvenience caused.
In March 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that he was concerned about the fire safety risk from overgrown vegetation. Because of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to reinspect the property and grounds for any fire safety risks. It should provide the resident with a copy of its inspection report, and where it finds it needs to do work it should provide the resident with details of what it intends to do.
The Ombudsman cannot comment on whether the overgrown vegetation and door were a fire risk but has noted the comments about there being another exit and the garden being an open space. However, on the action the landlord took to resolve the problem with the door, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord responded reasonably to the reports and tried to find the cause.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says when it receives a complaint it will send a response within 10 working days. When a resident escalates a complaint, it will send a final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy also says that a resident should make a request to escalate their complaint to stage 2 within 28 days of the stage 1 response. The Ombudsman’s Code does not stipulate a timeframe for residents to escalate their complaint. If the landlord wishes to impose a time limit on this, it must ensure that:
1. It is made clear within its complaints policy.
2. It is clearly stated in the stage 1 response letter.
3. Any time limit is fair, reasonable, and proportionate. This should allow for residents who may adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach to see whether the actions proposed in the stage 1 response resolve the complaint.
4. It is not overly restrictive and does not place unnecessary barriers on residents.
5. It must consider whether to apply discretion to accept complaints made outside this time limit where there are good reasons to do so.
The resident complained about overgrown gardens and a blocked door on 3 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 April 2023 and sent a response on 19 April 2023. This was 11 working days later. Although slightly outside the 10-day timescale, this had no detrimental effect on the resident.
The landlord’s complaint response said if it did not hear from the resident within 28 working days from the date of the letter, it would close his complaint.
In its complaint response, the landlord said it was looking at a one-off cut back of the gardens. When this did not happen, the resident escalated his complaint on 2 June 2023. This was 44 days after the landlord sent its complaint response.
On 5 September 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord as the resident had not received a response to his escalation request. The landlord sent its final response on 11 September 2023, which was 71 working days after the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
In an internal email on 5 September 2023, the landlord said it had missed the resident’s escalation request. It also said its policy stated that a resident had 28 days to request a review, and this was set out in the stage 1 response. It said the request to escalate came after 28 days.
The Ombudsman has found that although the landlord was in contact with the resident after sending the stage 1 response, it did not acknowledge or respond to his complaint escalation request. The landlord had made it clear that the resident had 28 days to escalate his complaint. It had also said it was looking to do work to clear the overgrown vegetation. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the resident took a wait and see approach to see whether the landlord did what it said it would do in the stage 1 response. When the landlord did not clear the vegetation, the resident escalated his complaint.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that in the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to be flexible and accept the escalation request. However, the landlord did not do this, and the resident had to contact the Ombudsman to get a response. This caused him inconvenience. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the failure to escalate the complaint and respond in a reasonable time were service failure.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds service failure when there has been a minor failure. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by the failure to escalate his complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord on its:
1. Handling of reports of overgrown vegetation blocking a fire escape.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for the failures found in this report. It must pay this within 4 weeks of the date of the report. It must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears.
The landlord must reinspect the property and grounds for any fire safety risks. It should provide the resident with a copy of its inspection report, and where it finds it needs to do work it should provide the resident with details of what it intends to do.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.