Catalyst Housing Limited (201905894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905894

Catalyst Housing Limited

27 January 2021

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 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 reports of a Japanese Knotweed infestation in her garden. This includes her request for reimbursement for costs she states she incurred removing this.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord’s internal emails suggest that the first treatment to deal with a Japanese Knotweed infestation in the resident’s garden began in September 2016. No evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident has been provided by either party until the resident’s complaint in May 2018.
4. The resident first raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of Japanese Knotweed in May 2018. The resident explained that she had tended to her garden for over 20 years, but her garden was unlike any other garden because of the persistent issue with the Japanese Knotweed. The resident stated she had spent a lot of money on the garden and had had little help from the landlord. The resident therefore requested compensation for the money she had spent on maintaining the garden.
5. On 24 May 2018 the landlord’s records show that treatment was carried out on the resident’s garden. Subsequent treatment was carried out on 14 June 2018. The treatment is described as clearing and spraying the affected areas.
6. The landlord’s complaint response of 29 May 2018, however, confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain her own garden, as per the tenancy agreement she had signed.
7. The landlord’s records show that a visit on 9 July 2018 concluded that there was no evidence of Japanese Knotweed present. Further treatment was carried out on the resident’s garden on 15 August 2018 and 5 September 2018.
8. On 1 May 2019 the resident again wrote to the landlord and explained that for over 20 years she had taken the responsibility to maintain her garden, but she felt that it was the landlord’s responsibility to eradicate the Japanese Knotweed that had infiltrated her garden. She said that she had requested assistance from the landlord over many years but had received little help in eradicating this weed, and therefore she had had to bear the brunt of the cost of maintaining the garden. The resident therefore requested compensation for the following:
   1. For the money she had paid contractors to maintain the garden; and
   2. For the labour she had put in herself to maintain the garden.
9. In the landlord’s complaint response of 17 July 2019, the landlord confirmed that it had started treatment on the Japanese Knotweed in 2017 and the treatments have been ongoing ever since. The landlord confirmed that it did not have a record of the resident reporting an issue with Japanese Knotweed prior to October 2015, and therefore it was unable to conclude that there had been any service failure over a period of 20 years. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged that there was a small delay in responding to the resident in regard to this matter, for which it apologised and offered £50.00 compensation. Included in the compensation amount was the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
10. The landlord confirmed that the treatment for the Japanese Knotweed had been completed and the resident should commence applying grass seed, which it said would keep any regrowth of the weed to a minimum. The landlord also advised the resident to not cover the area with tarpaulin, as this would encourage regrowth.
11. In conclusion, the landlord was sorry that the resident felt she had not been supported in this matter but asserted that it would always deal with reports of Japanese Knotweed as soon as it was made aware. The landlord did not accept the resident’s claim for compensation.
12. In the resident’s letter, dated 3 August 2019, she asked the landlord to provide details of the extent of the Japanese Knotweed at the time of treatment in 2017. The resident stated that she had reported the issue on numerous occasions both prior to and after 2015, as well as providing corresponding photographic evidence. She did not accept the offer of compensation, and reiterated her request to be compensated for the work she had conducted on the garden herself and for the contractors she had paid to carry out work. The resident claimed that the landlord was taking credit for the treatment she had either done herself or paid contractors herself to complete. She stated that the landlord did not deal with her reports as soon as it was made aware, and she had had to ‘fight’ with the landlord over many years.
13. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 27 August 2019, the landlord confirmed that it was unable to investigate issues dating back to 2017, because it would have expected the resident to raise a formal complaint at the time if she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the matter; this was supported by the landlord referencing its Complaints Policy, which stated that formal complaints should be raised within three months of the event taking place. In light of this, the landlord said it was unable to comment further.
14. In regard to the compensation request, the landlord provided details of how to make an insurance claim, because the resident had declined its compensation offer. This outlined that the resident would need to provide details of why the resident held the landlord responsible for any damage/loss, what issues/items she was claiming for, and the amount she was claiming, providing the relevant estimates/receipts.
15. On 30 September 2019 the landlord wrote the resident to request that it provide evidence that she had reported the issue of Japanese Knotweed prior to 2015. The landlord reiterated that it had successfully carried out treatment to tackle the issue, which it said the resident had agreed had now been eradicated and was not showing signs of an imminent return. The landlord scheduled an appointment to discuss the matter further on 7 October 2019.
16. In a telephone call with this Service on 16 March 2020, the resident said that the landlord had visited the property on 28 February 2020. The landlord is said to have advised the resident that it could not find any information the resident had provided previously regarding the complaint.
17. Following contact from the resident in June 2020, this Service asked the landlord for an update on the resident’s complaint. On 19 June 2020, the landlord provided its response and stated that it was not able to find any records of any reports of Japanese Knotweed prior to October 2015, and therefore it was not able to verify any service failure for the period she had stated, which was over ten years. The landlord restated that it was unable to reimburse the resident for the costs of arranging work to be carried out on her garden. Lastly, the landlord said that its records show that the Japanese Knotweed had been eradicated; but it said that if the resident had further issues with the weed, she should contact the landlord. This was the landlord’s final response to the matter.

Assessment and findings

18. First and foremost, it is noted that the resident has stated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the Japanese Knotweed infestation in her garden goes back 20 years. This investigation will not consider events dating back that far, as we would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint about an issue within six months of the matter arising. This investigation will therefore only consider events from approximately 2018 onwards, 6 months before the resident first raised a complaint regarding the issue.
19. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible ‘to maintain the garden, if any in tidy condition and free from rubbish.’ The tenancy agreement is silent with regard to who would be responsible for removing invasive plant species. However, there is an implied responsibility that the landlord would address invasive plant species such as Japanese Knotweed, because it would be liable, as the landlord, for any legal repercussions if the issue was to spread to a neighbouring property. Moreover, the treatment required would be specialist, due to the nature and duration of the specialist treatment. For example, according to the government’s guidance, it usually takes around three years to treat Japanese Knotweed, with specialist chemical treatment usually required to fully eradicate the plant. This therefore would not be something a tenant would be expected to address, unless explicitly stated in the tenancy agreement.
20. In this case, the landlord began treatment in September 2016, which concluded in September 2018, with the contractors confirming that the treatment had been successful. This was in line with the landlord’s obligations as detailed above.
21. However, the resident is disputing the landlord’s contribution to helping eradicate the Japanese Knotweed, claiming that the eradication of the plant was due to her own efforts over a period of 20 years, as well as instructing her own contractors to carry out works to her garden at her own expense.
22. It is not doubted that the resident has likely engaged in more-than-usual maintenance of her garden due to the Japanese Knotweed and this could have caused additional distress and inconvenience. Nevertheless, for a landlord to consider reimbursement of any works – either carried out by a tenant or by contractors a tenant had instructed – a landlord would need evidence to support the claim, and a tenant should make the landlord aware of the situation as soon as possible. In this instance, the landlord’s decision to not offer compensation was adequate, as the resident should have provided the relevant receipts of any works carried out, and provided these in a timely fashion. The landlord would have then been able to respond accordingly, explaining its position on the matter and either accept the claim or carry out further investigative work on the resident’s garden.
23. Furthermore, without specific dates and evidence of when the works were allegedly carried out, the landlord would not be in a position to establish whether the actions taken by the resident were brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, which, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, would be within six months of the matter arising.
24. In short, this Service, nor the landlord, has been provided with any dates/receipts which would confirm when works instructed by the resident had taken place. Because the resident did not provide evidence to support her claim, the landlord was thereby not in a position to formally address the issue at hand. What is more, the resident would have been expected to have provided the evidence, and supplied information regarding the work she had completed herself, at the time these were carried out. As such, there has been no service failure by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a Japanese Knotweed infestation in her garden, and her request for reimbursement for costs she states she incurred removing this.

Reasons

26. The landlord has carried out treatment of the Japanese Knotweed in the resident’s garden in accordance with its obligations as the landlord of the property.
27. The landlord’s decision not to award compensation was based on the lack of evidence to support the resident’s claim and was therefore an adequate response.