Livv Housing Group (202113921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113921

Livv Housing Group

15 February 2023

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden;
2. Response to reports of outstanding repairs to the drainage at the property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Communication;
2. Record keeping and complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2017 and lives in a two-bed flat. The flat has use of a communal garden which services four flats.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining drains and external pipes, and waste outlets for washing machines. The policy states that residents are responsible for garden maintenance, it does not specify who is responsible for maintenance of communal gardens.
The repairs policy states that the landlord will complete urgent repairs within seven days and routine repairs within 28 days. Urgent repairs are classed as those that do not cause the resident ‘unacceptable inconvenience’ but could cause further damage or inconvenience if not dealt with quickly.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy states the stage one complaints will be acknowledged within one working day and resolved within ten working days. Stage two complaints should be requested within 21 days of the stage one complaint response. The landlord will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint and compensation policy does not detail how levels of financial remedy are awarded. It does however state that any such payments will be in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Summary of events

On 12 September 2018 the resident requested that the landlord make safe the fencing to the communal garden. The landlord’s repair log shows that this was completed on 17 September 2018.
On 24 April 2019 the resident reported that the external gulley in the communal areas was blocked. The log shows the repair was completed on 15 May 2019.
On 7 July 2019 the resident reported that a concrete slab which was part of the fence in the garden was “coming away”. A repair was raised to make this safe and the log shows this was completed on 5 August 2019.
On 12 May 2021 the resident reported that the drainage gulley in the communal garden was blocked. The repair log shows that this was cleared on 11 June 2021.
Also on 12 May 2021 the resident reported a repair which was logged against her next-door neighbour’s property. The repair was for obsolete concrete posts to be removed and made safe.
On 17 May 2021 an inspection of the communal garden was carried out to determine what works were required.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 21 May 2021 to ask whether the works had been raised. The advisor told the resident that they could not see any jobs had been raised but that a note stated that they had been raised. A request was made for someone to call the resident back to update her.
The resident telephoned the landlord again on 24 May 2021 asking for an update. The notes state that the jobs had been raised against the next-door neighbour’s property. A request was again made for someone to call the resident back to update her.
The resident telephoned the landlord chasing for an update again on 17 June 2021. The log states that she was annoyed that work had not yet started. The resident again requested a call back.
On 18 June 2021 an internal communication shows that the landlord spoke with its contractor who confirmed it would attend on 25 June 2021.
On 18 June 2021 the resident was advised that work had been booked for 25 June 2021. The resident stated that this was not good enough as she had been waiting for four years and her child had been unable to play out. A stage one complaint was raised.
On 22 June 2021 the resident reported that the drainage gulley was blocked. The log shows that the contractor was unable to access the garden to complete the repair on three occasions. The repair record shows the work was completed on 29 July 2021.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 25 June 2021 work was completed to remove obsolete concrete posts and make the fencing safe.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021. It said:
1. It apologised for its failings in removing the post.
2. The contractors had returned and removed the post correctly.
3. The contractors would compete work to clear the gullies and renew the damaged pipework by the end of July 2021.
4. Debris, wire, and rubble in the communal garden had been raised with the relevant department and solutions would be considered to resolve the resident’s safety concerns.
5. The landlord apologised and offered £35 in recognition of its failure to carry out the works correctly and said it would keep the resident informed of a completion date for the work.
On 22 July 2021 the resident called the landlord and advised she was still waiting on a phone call to update her about the garden. She stated the garden condition was getting worse as the drains were backing up and that the children couldn’t play out.
On 23 July 2021 the resident raised a stage two complaint. She said:
1. She had been waiting for three and a half years for the garden works to be completed.
2. Only minor works had been carried out.
3. The following works were outstanding:
  1. The drains were blocked and backing up into her washing machine.
  2. The rear of the garden was supposed to have been raised and concreted off with a flower bed.
4. She had fallen into rent arrears and she felt these should be wiped due to the delays to works.
It is unclear when it was agreed between the parties that the rear of the garden would be raised and a flower bed added. No evidence has been seen by this service demonstrating this agreement.
A note on the telephone log on 23 July 2021 following the resident’s call stated that the drainage contractor would be attending the same day to clear the drainage gulley. It also stated that enquiries had been made to try and schedule the agreed garden works as soon as possible.
The landlord’s repairs record shows that it raised a repair to unblock the resident’s washing machine waste pipe. The landlord states that a repair appointment was made for 31 July 2021 but that the landlord was unable to access the property to carry out the work.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 10 August 2021. The response stated:
1. The resident’s complaint had been about:
  1. Debris and dangerous items in the garden preventing safe child play
  2. Blocked and broken pipework in the rear garden
  3. Blocked washing machine drainage pipe
2. The pipe repair work and unblocking of the washing machine pipe were still ‘pending’.
3. It was waiting costs for the remedial garden works to be agreed and then work would commence.
The stage two response letter dated 10 August 2021 did not state whether the resident’s complaint had been upheld.
On 22 September 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord. The call log shows that the resident was not happy with the garden works that had been completed.
Following the resident’s call, also on 22 September 2021, a repair was raised for paving slabs to be lifted and re-laid. The repair was again logged against the property of the resident’s neighbour. Repair records show that the work was completed on 18 November 2021.
On 23 September 2021 the resident telephoned to speak to the landlord’s surveyor. Her call was transferred but this service has not seen any evidence of what was discussed.
The landlord’s repairs record shows that on 19 November 2021 the resident telephoned to report that her washing machine waste pipe was still blocked. The landlord raised an emergency repair and this was completed the same day.
On 26 January 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and stated that:
1. The garden still was not safe for her child.
2. The drainage gulley was still broken and flooding the garden.
3. The drains were backing up into her washing machine which she had had to replace.
On 4 April 2022 the resident provided an update to this service and stated that the works outlined in the landlord’s stage two complaint response letter had not been completed.
The landlord’s repairs records show that on 27 April 2022 it was reported that the drainage gulley outside the resident’s property was blocked. The landlord has stated in recent communications with this service that the drains were cleared “before 29 April 2022”.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord’s repair records show the gulley was again flushed to clear a blockage.
On 7 July 2022 the resident advised this service that the garden works were still unresolved.
The landlord’s repairs records show that on 17 August 2022 works were carried out to rebuild the garden wall.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 7 December 2022 it completed maintenance to the communal garden including:
1. Fixing loose and broken paving slabs
2. Fixing a broken gulley
3. Removal of old pieces of concrete posts
4. Refixing a clothesline post
5. Removing trip hazards
On 11 January 2023 the resident advised this service that works had been completed to her garden but they were not of a high enough standard and the garden was a danger to her child. It is unclear from the evidence available whether the landlord took steps to satisfy itself that the garden was in a safe condition.
Information provided to this service by the landlord on 18 January 2023 states that it does not hold:
1. photographs of the garden at the time of the resident’s complaint
2. records to demonstrate that works were raised to clear debris following the resident’s complaint
3. records of inspections of communal areas unless issues were identified.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden

The resident reported to the landlord that she felt the communal garden was unsafe on 12 May 2021. In response the landlord carried out an inspection of the garden on 17 May 2021 to identify what works were required. This initial action was reasonable and timely.
However, works to the garden were carried out six weeks later on 25 June 2021 – these were described as the removal of concrete posts and making safe the fencing. The landlord has acknowledged that this was outside of the timescales outlined in its repairs policy for routine repairs, this is a failure.
The resident remained unhappy with the condition of the garden and raised a formal complaint on 7 July 2021. Within its stage one complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there was “debris, wire, and rubble” in the garden that caused the resident safety concerns. It stated that these would be resolved. The landlord’s stage two complaint response on 10 August 2021 illustrates that the works remained outstanding, and therefore it had failed to ensure safe condition of the garden by this point.
The landlord’s repairs records show that loose flagstones were reported to the landlord on 22 September 2021 and re-laid on 18 November 2021. Loose flags would have constituted a trip hazard and therefore it is unreasonable that it took the landlord eight weeks to carry out this repair, outside the timeframe for routine repairs. This was a failure.
Repair records illustrate that the landlord attended to repair a wall in August 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out the remaining remedial garden works referred to in its stage two complaint response until December 2022 when it re-laid paving slabs, and removed old pieces of concrete post and “trip hazards”. These works were not raised until 16 November 2022 which indicates that they were not adequately identified or carried out by the landlord earlier. There are no records that detail any extenuating circumstances that may explain such a long delay, or that the resident was kept updated.
Whilst the landlord’s records demonstrate that remedial works have been carried out there is a discrepancy of opinion as to the quality of these works. The resident has stated that she is dissatisfied with the standard of the works carried out to the garden. The landlord has provided photographs that it states confirms its view that the works have been carried out satisfactorily.
Based on the evidence seen, this service takes the view that the landlord failed to resolve the resident’s garden repairs raised on 12 May 2021 until 7 December 2022. This timescale of over 18 months to resolve health and safety concerns in a communal area is unfair and unreasonable and constitute maladministration.

Response to reports of outstanding repairs to the drainage at the property

The resident reported to the landlord on five occasions between 12 May 2021 and 31 May 2022 that the gulley in the communal garden was blocked.
The landlord has stated that its contractor was unable to gain access to flush the gulley on three occasions to complete the repair between 22 June 2021 and 29 July 2021 when it states it cleared the blockage.
The repair records show that the problems with the gulley were caused by broken pipework. Flushing the pipes would only have provided a short-term solution and failed to address the root of the problem. Therefore the landlord’s inability to gain access at this time does not explain the delay in fully resolving the repair.
In its stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021 the landlord stated that it would renew broken pipework to the gulley by the end of July 2021. This work remained outstanding on 1 August 2021 and, according to the landlord, was eventually completed on 7 December 2022. This was over 16 months outside of the timescale provided by the landlord in its stage one complaint response. In the absence of any records outlining any extenuating circumstances that may explain such a long delay or that it kept the resident informed, this service finds that the landlord unreasonably delayed in repairing the drainage gulley.
The broken gulley, according to the resident, caused dirty water to back up and flood the communal garden. This would have been unpleasant for the occupants of all four flats, especially during summer months when the garden will have been most utilised. It will also have worsened the condition of the garden and exacerbated the resident’s frustrations. The detriment caused by the drainage issues was experienced for a prolonged period and this is unreasonable.
The resident reported to the landlord that her washing machine waste pipe was blocked on two occasions on 23 July 2021 and 19 November 2021. Whilst the landlord attended to unblock the waste pipe on two occasions, it accepts that the issue with the washing machine waste was likely to be “linked” to the broken gulley. Therefore, the resident continued to experience dirty water backing up into her washing machine as she reported to this service in January 2022 – this is unacceptable.
The resident reports that she had to replace her washing machine as a result. This service is unable to determine liability for damage to personal belongings and the resident is advised to contact her home contents insurer if she has one, or the landlord’s liability insurer.

Communication

The landlord does not appear to have made clear to the resident, following its inspection on 17 May 2021, what works had been raised and when they would be completed. This is despite the resident calling to request this information. This caused understandable and avoidable frustration to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on at least four occasions between 21 May 2021 and 22 July 2021 and asked that the surveyor call her back. The landlord’s call logs demonstrate that it failed to call the resident back despite her chasing regularly for two months. This caused the resident to have to invest an unreasonable amount of her time and caused her to raise a formal complaint in order to get a response.
Despite the residents June 2021 formal complaint, she continued to experience frustrations in attempting to speak to the landlord and get updates on the works requested.
Following its stage one complaint response in July 2021 the landlord did not provide the resident with a clear outline of what works had been raised and when they would be completed. This failure caused the resident to feel frustration and to have to continue to invest an unreasonable amount of time in chasing the landlord for a response.
The landlord also failed to maintain contact with the resident following her stage two complaint to keep her informed about the progress of works in the garden which caused her distress and a further investment of an unreasonable amount of time and effort. This amounted to maladministration.

Record keeping and complaint handling

When the resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2021 to discuss the repairs to the garden, the landlord was unable to locate a record of the works raised. This was because the works had been raised against a neighbour’s property. The resident’s request on 22 September 2021 for paving slabs to be re-laid was also raised against a neighbouring property.
The gulley in the garden, and the garden itself, services all four flats and therefore it would have been sensible for works to have been recorded against the communal area or against the property of the individual resident who raised them. Some of the works were raised in this way but others were raised against other properties. The landlord failed to apply a consistent approach to record keeping and this meant that the landlord was not able to quickly access relevant information.
When the resident called the surveyor on 23 September 2021, she was put through to the surveyor but there is no record of what was discussed. This indicates failure to record communication with the resident and therefore maintain an audit trail of the action taken to resolve the complaint.
The landlord has been unable to provide this service with exact completion dates for some works. For example, it states that the communal gulley was cleared “before 29 April 2022”. The landlord has also advised that it does not have a record of works raised following the resident’s complaint.
The landlord has stated that it does not have photographs of the resident’s garden taken at the time of her complaint. This has meant that the landlord has been unable to demonstrate the condition of the garden before and after the resident’s complaint and the works it carried out.
The landlord has also stated that it does not keep records of inspections of communal areas unless issues are identified. There is therefore no evidence that the landlord took the necessary steps to identify what works were needed to ensure the garden’s safety and that it carried out these works, at the time it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
It is acknowledged that the landlord has, in recent communications, assured this service that it had changed its approach and now keep records of all inspections of communal areas. The landlord also states that it is in the process of making further improvements to its monthly estate inspections and improving record keeping in this area.
Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Landlord staff should be aware of a its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
The failings in record keeping caused the resident frustration as she had to call the landlord on more than one occasion for an update on her repair. Poor record keeping also impacted on the ability of this service to fully understand the scope of the repairs required to the garden. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord is in the process of making improvements this does not provide remedy for the resident. Cumulatively, these failures amount to maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping and an order to implement improvements has been made below.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response acknowledged that there had been failings in its repairs service to remove the concrete post. It was appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge its failings.
The response letter confirmed that the post had been removed and that works to clear the gullies would be completed by the end of July 2021. Providing the resident with clear timeframes to manage her expectations was good practice however the landlord failed to monitor the works and adhere to this timeframe.
In its stage one complaint response the landlord advised that it would keep the resident updated about completion dates for the repairs to the garden. The landlord failed to do so.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states that its payments will be based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord offered the resident £35 compensation for its failure to correctly carry out the garden repairs. This is not in line with this service’s guidelines at the time of £50-£250 for service failure and £250-£700 for maladministration.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord failed to advise the resident of the outcome of her complaint – that is, whether it was upheld or not upheld. In its response, the landlord advised that the repairs to the washing machine waste pipe, communal gulley, and remedial garden work were due to be completed but did not provide any timeframes for completion or advise the customer that it would contact her to book appointments. The response lacked empathy, which is an important part of dispute resolution, also failing to consider the impact that its failures had on the resident.
Despite having made no progress since its stage one complaint response the landlord did not acknowledge its failings or make any offer of redress. This is not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right. Therefore the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and appropriate orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden
2. Response to reports of outstanding repairs to the drainage at the property
3. Communication
4. Record keeping and complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in resolving the resident’s reports that the communal garden was unsafe for her children (and it follows, the three other households who had use of the area). The resident and her neighbours were unable to make full use of the garden which, by the landlords own acknowledgement contained debris, wire, rubble and trip hazards.
The landlord failed to resolve the root cause of the drainage issues – broken pipework in the gulley. Instead, it took a short-sighted approach and repeatedly attended to flush blockages. The delays in addressing the source of the problem led to the resident experiencing a flooded garden and dirty water backing up into her washing machine.
The landlord failed to respond to requests by the resident to return her telephone calls leaving her frustrated and causing her to have to invest unreasonable time and trouble chasing the landlord. It also failed to provide her with updates following its stage two complaint response which caused the resident distress.
The landlord’s record keeping failures exacerbated the substantive issue of the complaint. Failure to record repairs in a consistent way caused difficulties in locating information to when the customer telephoned for updates which caused further frustration and distress. Failure to record any photographs from the time of the resident’s complaint prevented this service from comparing the condition of the garden then to its condition after the completed repairs.
The landlord failed to deliver on the assurances it made to the resident in its stage one complaint response. It failed to put things right by completing the outstanding works within a reasonable time, or by offering sufficient financial redress. Its stage two complaint response failed to acknowledge its failures and the impact of those failures on the resident, and failed to offer any redress.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £1000, comprising:
1. £250 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her garden
2. £250 for its failures in its response to reports of outstanding repairs to the drainage at the property
3. £250 for its communication failures
4. £250 for its record keeping and complaint handling failures.
The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks to provide her with details to enable her to submit a liability claim to its insurers for her damaged washing machine.
The landlord to carry out a review of its procedures in relation to recording repairs and inspections of communal garden areas to ensure they are effectively recorded in a consistent way. The outcome of the review should be shared with this service within six weeks of this report.
The landlord to carry out a review of its complaint and compensation policy and consider providing further guidance to staff in calculating compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The outcome of the review should be shared with this service within six weeks of this report.