Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202123374)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123374

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

30 January 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

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the handling of the communal garden outside his home.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow adjacent to which is an area of communal garden, which is the subject of the complaint.
  2. The resident originally complained about the state of the garden and damage to the grass in November 2021. This led to the landlord re-turfing the area on 30 May 2022 and advising the resident the importance of maintenance during the warm weather, as a resolution.
  3. On 23 September 2022, the resident raised a new complaint. He said that the re-turfed grass had been cut too low by the garden maintenance team and was damaged as a result. Given the history of the issue, the resident believed this had been done deliberately. He asked the landlord to pave the area to resolve the ongoing problems with the grass. The landlord has provided a records log that states it inspected the turf the same day agreed the grass would be cut higher to assist the bedding in of the turf. It said it would inspect the turf at the next visit.
  4. The landlord’s records state that on 04 October 2022, a joint visit was done with the resident, where the landlord noted that the turf had been cut as agreed and there was no evidence of deliberate damage caused by the gardening maintenance team.
  5. The landlord sent its first complaint response on 06 October 2022. It explained that It found no deliberate damage to the turf and that grass’s condition was likely caused by dryness. It explained it would not pave the area. The resident escalated his complaint to stage two as he disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to pave the area. In its final complaint response, the landlord reiterated its position that it would not pave the area, and explained why.
  6. The resident brought his complaint to this Service because he disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to pave the communal grassed area. The resident explained that while the garden is communal, because of the location and set up, it was only him that used it.

Assessment and findings

  1. As per the tenancy agreement, residents are only responsible for their own personal gardens. Other gardens are therefore the landlord’s responsibility. In this case the grassed area the complaint relates to is a communal area, and is the responsibility of the landlord to manage and maintain.
  2. In response to the resident’s concern that the grass was dry due to being cut too low, the landlord carried out two inspections, one at stage one and the other at stage two of the complaint process. It found no evidence of deliberate damage. It explained to the resident that it believed the grass problem was likely due to the unusually hot weather and an apparent lack of watering. The landlord undertook some work to address the garden’s condition, and explained what the resident could also do to assist. Decisions about how to manage communal gardens are the landlord’s to make, although it should do so in consultation and accordance with tenants’ wishes wherever possible. Nonetheless, the final decisions about managing the garden were the landlord’s.
  3. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the garden’s condition, took steps to address it, and explained further steps the resident might wish to take. It considered his request to pave over the area, and explained why it would not do so. This investigation has not seen any meaningful evidence which might have led the landlord to agree that damage had been deliberately caused to the garden, or that paving the area was proportionate or appropriate, and therefore its actions and decisions were reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.