Lambeth Council (202215187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215187

Lambeth Council

3 June 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request that it remove tree stumps from his garden.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat with a garden. The tenancy start date was 22 June 2020.
3. Between November 2020 and January 2021, the resident and the landlord discussed whether it had added the resident’s medical condition as a vulnerability on his account. He was advised that although he mentioned the medical condition at sign up, he had not provided any evidence of it, as requested. The resident sent a screenshot of a health department document confirming that he had a vulnerability which meant he needed to “shield” due to being at high risk should he catch Covid -19. The landlord responded by adding a vulnerability flag to his account in January 2021.
4. On 19 April 2021, following a telephone conversation with the landlord, the resident emailed it to say that due to Covid 19 restrictions he had had to wait until then to arrange for somebody to start work on his garden (as his medical condition meant he was unable to do the work himself). He felt that as a vulnerable resident the landlord had let him down by not removing three large tree stumps from the garden before he moved in, which would now cost him thousands of pounds to remove. He asked that the landlord remove them at its expense.
5. In its response on 21 April 2021 the landlord said it would not be removing the stumps as they were the resident’s responsibility. It said although a temporary vulnerability flag had been added when the resident provided evidence of him shielding, that had now been removed as shielding had ended. It said evidence of his medical condition would be required, if he wanted to add a permanent vulnerability flag. It is not clear if the resident provided this evidence.
6. On 29 July 2022 the resident raised a complaint about what he considered was a lack of support by the landlord to remove the stumps and asked that it reconsider its decision. In its response on 13 September 2022 the landlord said it was treating this as service request and explained that it would not remove the stumps as it had no budget to carry out gardening works in tenant’s gardens. The landlord said that because of the length of time he had lived in the property, it could no longer “entertain complaints” about issues regarding the state of the garden when he initially moved in. The landlord agreed that if the resident could provide evidence of having raised the issue within the first year of his tenancy it would review its position.
7. On 14 September 2022, the resident provided evidence of his previous correspondence from 2021, and an internal email saying that the landlord would enquire about the cost of chemical treatment before making a decision. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 September 2022 and said it would not remove the stumps, as the garden was the resident’s responsibility and it did not have a budget for works required in private gardens.
8. On 14 October 2022 this Service contacted the landlord, as the resident said he was dissatisfied with its response. It confirmed that its email on 22 September 2022 had been its stage one complaint response and that it would escalate the complaint. In its stage two complaint response on 18 November 2022, it said that it would not be removing the tree stumps as its lettable standard stated that “Trees: or the stumps of trees will not be removed” and the tenancy agreement stated that the “If you have a garden, you must keep it reasonably tidy. If you fail to keep it reasonably tidy, we may require you to tidy your garden, or we may decide to do the work for you and to charge you for it. You are also responsible for keeping trees and hedges within your garden pruned and trimmed back so they do not cause an obstruction or nuisance to others.”
9. The resident contacted this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In April 2022, the landlord informed this Service that it had changed its position and agreed to grind down the tree stumps, and that this would take place as soon as scaffolding at the property was no longer in place, as it was preventing the grinding machine from accessing the garden.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s request that it remove tree stumps from his garden.

10. The landlord has a lettable standard, which is the minimum standard for the specification of repair work to all void properties prior to re-letting. The lettable standard document states that “Trees, or the stumps of trees will not be removed.” Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not remove the tree stumps from the garden before the resident moved into the property in June 2020.
11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for keeping trees and hedges in their garden pruned and trimmed back. Therefore, once the resident moved into the property, he became responsible for the garden. It was therefore reasonable that landlord did not agree to removing the tree stumps when the resident requested that it do so in 2021. As a social landlord, the landlord has a limited budget and is held accountable for any expenditure. Therefore, it was reasonable that it considered the cost of carrying out any work, even though it was outside of its obligations, and reasonable that it ultimately decided at the time that it would not fund the removal of the tree stumps.
12. The resident has made reference to a medical condition which he considers a vulnerability and the landlord noted that a temporary vulnerability flag had been removed from his account once shielding for vulnerable people ended. It is important that landlords have an accurate record of resident’s vulnerabilities, and this Service will be recommending that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that its records are accurate. However, the presence of a vulnerability at sign up would not have changed the fact that, in line with its lettable standard, the landlord had no obligation to remove the tree stumps. And, in line with the tenancy agreement the garden became the resident’s responsibility when the tenancy started. This Service will also be recommending that if and when a permanent vulnerability flag is added to the resident’s account, that the landlord signpost the resident to any charities or organisations that may be able to help with any ongoing maintenance of the garden, if his medical condition prevents him from doing so.
13. To summarise there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request that it remove tree stumps from his garden, and its decision not to, was reasonable. It is noted that the landlord has since agreed to act above and beyond its obligations, by agreeing to grind down the stumps at its own expense. This Service will be recommending that it contact the resident to confirm the date that this will commence, if it has not already done so.

Complaint Handling.

14. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. At stage one (local resolution) the complaint should be responded to within 20 working days and the response should advise the complainant of their right to escalate to Stage two. At stage two (the final review) the landlord should provide a response within 25 working days.
15. When the resident raised his complaint on 29 July 2022, there was some initial confusion about whether to treat it as a complaint or a service request and the landlord also had some concerns about the length of time that had passed since the initial issue when the resident moved in in 2020. This was reasonable as its complaints policy states that “complaints should be made as near to the incident being complained about as possible. Any complaint known about by the customer, but which has not been reported to the council within 12 months, will not normally be accepted unless there is good reason for the delay”. It was also reasonable that once the resident provided evidence of him having raised the issue previously, the landlord investigated his concerns as a formal complaint, and responded to it in line with the timeframes in its complaints policy.
16. However, in line with its complaints policy the landlord should also have provided a stage one complaint response which advised the resident of his right to escalate his complaint. The landlord has confirmed that an email it sent to the resident on the 22 September 2022 was its stage one complaint response. However, this email was not labelled as such and did not advise the resident of how to escalate his complaint if he was dissatisfied with the response. When the resident referred to it as the final response there is no record of the landlord confirming that it was the stage one response.
17. The complaint was not escalated until this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 14 October 2022. In addition to this, the stage two complaint response incorrectly signposted the resident to the local government ombudsman, rather than the housing ombudsman. These failings amounted to service failure by the landlord, in respect of its complaint handling. This Service will be ordering the landlord to paythe resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but may have resulted in distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaints handling, states that complaints should be responded to within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. As the timeframes in the landlord’s complaint policy are not in line with these expectations, this Service will also be recommending that the landlord reviews its complaints policy to ensure that the timeframes are in line with the Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request that it remove tree stumps from his garden.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

21. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its service failure in respect of its complaint handing. The landlord is to confirm to this service once this payment has been made.

Recommendations

22. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to:
    1. Ensure that its records of the resident’s vulnerabilities are up to date and accurate.
    2. Signpost the resident to any relevant services or charities that may be able to help with the maintenance of his garden if his vulnerability prevents him from doing so.
    3. Confirm the date that scaffolding will be removed and the grinding down of the tree stumps will commence if this has not already taken place.
23. The landlord is also recommended to review its complaints policy to ensure the timeframes given are in line with the Complaint Handling Code (10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two).