Salix Homes Limited (202122506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122506

Salix Homes Limited

24 June 2022

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 decision not to pave over the grass area in front of the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. On 24 September 2021, during a landlord inspection of the communal area outside of the resident’s property, the resident raised concerns that he and his grandchildren could trip over edge stones bordering the perimeter of the grass area in front of his property. The resident wanted the area to be levelled and paved. The landlord decided that as it was not a repair issue, it would not be authorised, however, it did not notify the resident of this decision. On 25 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that he had not had any communication about his request to have the area paved. The landlord agent informed him over the phone that his request had been rejected. The resident then confirmed that he would like to appeal the decision.
4. On 14 December, the resident emailed the landlord and explained that it had been over six weeks since he appealed the decision, and said that he believed this was sufficient time to decide. He also reiterated that he was unhappy that he had not been informed of the initial decision to reject his request. The landlord registered this as the resident’s stage one complaint and gave its formal response on 17 December 2021. It confirmed that there had been an inspection on 24 September 2021 and that his request had not been authorised at that stage as it was deemed that there was no trip hazard. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to inform the resident of its decision regarding his request and apologised for the lack of communication. The landlord confirmed that after reviewing the resident’s request, it saw no reason to overturn the original decision due to there being no health and safety issue. The landlord advised that it would only do so if an occupational therapist referral recommended such an action.
5. On 23 December 2021 the resident requested escalation of the complaint to stage two, stating that it was discriminatory to not pave the area. He also emphasised that, in his view, there was a trip hazard for himself and for his grandchildren. The landlord issued its final response on 5 January 2022. The landlord agreed to remove the edging stones at the earliest opportunity after reviewing the resident’s comments, agreeing that it could be the source of an accident. However, the landlord explained that it would not pave the area as this would not be a repair but would be an improvement and there was therefore no requirement for it to undertake the requested action.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

6. Section 3.4 of the Tenancy Terms state that ‘[the landlord] will arrange for the maintenance and repair of any shared areas around [the resident’s] home’.
7. Section 6.1 of the Tenancy Terms states that the landlord will ‘take reasonable care to keep the common entrance… and any other common parts… in a reasonable repair and fit for use by [the resident] and other occupiers of and visitors to [the resident’s] home’.

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has stated that the landlord had been discriminatory in its consideration of the issue. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide.

The landlord’s decision not to pave over the grass area in front of the resident’s home

9. During an inspection of the resident’s property on 24 September 2021, the resident had made clear to the landlord that he had health and safety concerns regarding the grass area outside his property. Multiple agents determined that the work would be an improvement rather than a repair and denied the request. However, the landlord has confirmed that it failed to confirm this decision to the resident.
10. It is important for the landlord to keep the resident informed of any decisions or developments regarding any requests that have been made by the resident. Member landlord’s are encouraged to be proactive in communications with their tenants so that they are not required to pursue issues unnecessarily. When a tenant is made to chase the landlord for a response, it subjects them to unnecessary involvement and potential time and trouble in pursuing a response. Additionally, not informing the tenant of a decision could suggest to them that their request has not been taken seriously. Given that the resident’s request was in regard to a health and safety issue, more care should have been taken by the landlord to inform the resident of its decision. Maintaining good communication with the resident, and showing intent to respond to concerns in a timely manner, is important in maintaining a positive tenant/landlord relationship.
11. The landlord, in its stage one response (17 December 2021), said that the agent responsible for informing the resident of the decision had acknowledged that ‘regretfully’ he had not provided a response. The landlord apologised to the resident and said that it was not the standard of service that it aimed to provide. It also acknowledged that the failure to inform the resident meant that he had waited an ‘excessive amount of time’ for a decision.
12. The Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles look for a landlord to learn from outcomes and to ‘communicate with [the resident] about the changes [it made] as a consequence of complaints’. The landlord has shown in its response that it communicated to the resident that it had identified its failing, and that the agent had put ‘additional measures’ in place to ensure that he did not miss any further customer emails. The landlord has shown here, that it had taken the opportunity to learn from its failing and improve its communication process as a result.
13. The resident suggested that as well as a health and safety hazard, the request to have the area paved was for recreational use. He also explained that  his neighbour was unable to access the area due to mobility issues. Whilst the resident’s concerns for his neighbour are noted and appreciated, both this Service and the landlord are limited in the extent to which the neighbour’s circumstances can be taken into account as there is no evidence of the neighbour having raised any concerns themselves.
14. The landlord justified the decision to not carry out the work by explaining that the work would be an improvement rather than a repair. It came to this conclusion by reviewing the inspection report and photos of the area outside the property. The landlord found that it did not agree that the area was a health and safety issue, although it did admit that there was a potential trip hazard regarding the edging stones around the area.
15. In its stage one response, the landlord addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It took time to investigate and respond to the issues raised and ensured that it considered the potential health and safety issues. The landlord’s stage one response explained to the resident that the requested work would only be considered if it were to receive an occupational therapist referral recommending such action due to a medical need. This was reasonable as the landlord was right to make the resident aware that this was an option he could pursue. It also made clear to the resident that the landlord would be willing to do the work if advised that it was a medical necessity rather than an improvement. Given that it had taken steps to establish that the area was not in disrepair, the landlord was justified in determining that paving the area for recreational use would be an improvement rather than a repair. 
16. The resident was unsatisfied with the response given, and on 23 December 2021, requested escalation of his complaint to stage two. As part of the complaint escalation, the resident reiterated his health and safety concerns regarding the grassy area and noted that he was being denied access to the area by not having it paved.
17. The landlord issued its final response on 5 January 2021. Due to no further evidence being presented, the landlord upheld its decision to deny the paving of the area, reasoning that it would be an improvement rather than a repair. However, the landlord did review the resident’s health and safety concerns regarding the edging stones of the grass area and agreed to remove them. The landlord said ‘this could be the source of an accident and therefore, to remove the risk, [the landlord has requested] that the edging stones be removed at the earliest possible opportunity’.
18. Having deemed the stones to be a health risk, removing them was in line with section 6.1 of the Tenancy Terms. It states that the landlord will ‘take reasonable care to keep the common entrance… and any other common parts… in a reasonable repair and fit for use by [the resident] and other occupiers and visitors to [the resident’s] home’. Additionally, the landlord has shown that once it had agreed that it was a health risk, it prioritised the health and safety of the resident and attempted to have the work done at ‘the earliest possible opportunity’. Although the date the work was carried out has not been provided, the landlord did provide photos of the grass area since the completion of the work.
19. The landlord, throughout its complaint process, responded to the resident within reasonable timeframes and addressed all issues raised by the resident. Although it had initially failed to notify the resident of its decision, the landlord’s response to this was reasonable, as it offered a sincere apology to the resident and notified the resident that it had put measures in place to prevent reoccurrence of said failure. Additionally, its decision to not pave the area was clearly explained to the resident, and this Service agrees that it was a reasonable decision by the landlord. The landlord’s final decision to remove the edging stones was cooperative and showed that it was acting in the best interests of the resident.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to pave over the grassed area in front of the resident’s home.