Believe Housing Limited (202122515)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122515

Believe Housing Limited

26 April 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:
1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated repair works to the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a housing association assured tenancy which started on 20 March 2020. The property is a two bedroom house with garden. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 January 2022, after having completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. She stated that she was unhappy with the condition of the property when it was let to her and unhappy with how the landlord had handled repairs. She also explained that she had signed the tenancy agreement in March 2020, and that at the time of viewing the property she raised concerns about the poor condition of the property and was advised that all properties were let in that condition. However, she later contacted the landlord again to express her concerns and the landlord agreed several works, which included the property being recleaned, electrical works being carried out and the property plastered throughout. The resident advised that she was unable to occupy the property for six weeks and the landlord agreed that she would not be charged rent for that period. In addition, she explained that she had been petitioning the landlord to complete necessary repairs for the previous 20 months.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy has three repairs categories: emergency; appointable and; planned, which it states it will respond to within 24 hours, 20 working days and, 40 working days respectively. In addition, it shows that the landlord is responsible for (list not exhaustive):
1. The curtilage fencing, walls and gates.
2. Footpaths and hard standings within the curtilage.
3. Guttering rainwater, pipes and clips.
4. Drain and gulley surrounds.
5. Drain grids.
6. Major plaster work.
With regard to the lettable standards, the landlord states that it will ensure that the garden is tidy and free from rubbish and shed and other structures are removed. It also states that it will check that all external and internal doors are fit for purpose and that they open and close easily. It states that if any work needs to be carried out after the resident moves in, they will be made aware of what is outstanding and when it will be rectified.

Summary of events

The resident maintained that she had been complaining about various repairs issues since the start of her tenancy on 20 March 2020. However, other than the void inspection sheet dated 6 January 2020 and the post quality inspection sheet dated 12 March 2020, the landlord has not provided any communication or repairs logs for 2020. The earliest dated communication from the resident, provided by the landlord is 7 September 2021.
The landlord provided a copy of the void inspection sheet dated 6 January 2020, and which shows the property was handed back following completion of voids works on 17 February 2020. Under the subheading clearing and garden works required, it stated that both the garden and property needed to be cleared and that the garden and hedge needed strimming.
The void sheet also listed various repair works that are needed, which included:
1. Renewal of all internal doors.
2. Renewal of door frame, replace double doors in front bedroom, fit skirting to bedroom cupboard.
3. Renew handrail on stairs.
4. Fill all cracks in paths and clear gulleys.
5. Cut out crack in front bedroom under window.
6. Fill cracks around landing and living cupboards.
7. Remove floor tiles in living room cupboard.
8. Top up loft insulation.
9. Renew 30LM and two Columbian gates to left hand fence, 10LM to rear fence.
10. Trim bushes in front garden.
11. Clear rear garden and coal bunker.
12. Remove bricks and planters from front garden, cut hedges in front and rear.
The void sheet listed outstanding works and to be completed as:
1. Rear garden fence at bottom of garden and new gate to side, side fence to refix.
2. Loft insulation to top up.
The landlord also provided a copy of the quality post inspection sheet dated 12 March 2020, which listed various items and parts of the property that had been checked. It stated that all internal and external doors were in good condition, that they could be opened and closed and that keys were present. It also stated that external paths, gullys, walls and fences were in good condition and that the garden, trees and hedges were at a manageable level. As well as the void inspection sheet the landlord also provided various photos of the property pre and post voids work. These included photos of the replacement kitchen and bathroom, removal of floor coverings, boiler replacement, the new electrical fuse box and repair to a crack in the wall. With regard to the exterior of the property, there appeared to be an external light next to the front door, but it is unclear if this was the photo of the door before or after the voids work had taken place. In respect of the garden, the photos pre-void work clearly show an overgrown garden, full of rubbish and old damaged fences. Photos of the garden after the voids work, show that the garden had been cut back considerably and that the rubbish had been removed. However, the fences had not been replaced and the rear fence was missing completely. There are no clear photos of the flagstones, however, the photos do appear to show that some of the hardstanding areas are uneven and on different levels.
The resident maintained that she had been complaining about various repairs issues since the start of her tenancy on 20 March 2020. However, other than the void inspection sheet dated 6 January 2020 and the post quality inspection sheet dated 12 March 2020, the landlord has not provided any communication or repairs logs for 2020. The earliest dated communication from the resident, provided by the landlord is 7 September 2021.
On 7 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request to request an inspection of her garden. She stated that there were uneven and missing flagstones in the garden, which she said she had already brought to the attention of the landlord, she added that area was a hazard. She also explained that there were uneven, cracked and missing flagstones to the side of the property and that her child had previously fallen as a result. She explained that the gate opened into the back door, making access impossible and that whilst she could get access into the garden via the second gate, the route to the door was unsafe due to uneven steps on four different levels (a photo of this was included). She also raised concerns about the steepness of the garden and that it was impossible to do anything with it. The resident included photos of the hardstanding area at rear of the property, which showed flagstones on various different levels.
Between 9 September 2021 and 21 September 2021, there was an email exchange between the landlord and the resident, in which the landlord apologised that the resident felt the property wasn’t of an acceptable standard and asked the resident if she had raised her concerns at the start of the tenancy. In addition, it noted that she had raised an emergency call on 12 August 2021, regarding a repair to the paving, which the landlord had attended as an emergency repair the following day, but couldn’t get access as the resident wasn’t home.
The resident responded that she had cancelled that appointment due to work commitments. She also explained that she had notified her landlord of the repairs needed to the property at the start of the tenancy, but was unable to get a response for several weeks, she said that she eventually got a response and the interior walls were re-plastered so that she could decorate and move in.
The resident attached several photos dated 25 March 2020, which showed large cracks in internal walls, a broken fence, stained floorboards around a newly fitted toilet and a loosely fitted ceiling light fitting. The resident also provided a photo of a badly fitted internal bathroom door, although it is not clear from the photo if this is how the door was left after the void quality check. The resident expressed frustration at the number of times she had reported issues to the landlord and noted that since having moved in she had approximately 12 repairs completed, including repairs to the drains, the toilet and, fence. In addition, she provided photos of damp in the corner of a room, which she believed to be the result of faulty guttering. She also questioned why all neighbouring properties had an external light, but she did not.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2021, regarding the landlord’s visit to her property that day to repair the paving stones. She explained that she believed this was an issue that should have been sorted by the voids team before she moved in. Nevertheless, she asked the landlord to advise when the work would take place and to find out when the external light would be fitted. With regard to the bathroom door that the landlord had agreed to renew, the resident sought confirmation that it would be the same style door and that given that she had arranged for all doors to be painted when she moved in, she wanted the landlord’s assurances that it would also paint the door. The resident contacted the landlord again later that day to advise that she wanted to submit a formal complaint.
An internal email dated 24 September 2021, confirmed the following work:
1. 28 September 2021 – Plumbing- Kitchen tap leaking
2. 7 October 2021 – Joinery- Bathroom door does not fit the frame.
3. 16 November 2021 – Fencing- Rear wooden gate poorly situated and cannot be used.

The email stated that there was no planned work in relation to the path.

The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 September 2021, regarding the visit she received the week prior, during which she was told that the paving would be repaired. She explained that she was told the repair would take place between 8 am and 12pm that day but at 11am she was told that the appointment had been changed and would be between 8am and 4pm. She stated that she had specifically arranged a morning appointment and was disappointed that the appointment had been moved and that she had missed it.
The resident’s complaint was acknowledged on 29 September 2021, and she was told that she should expect a response within 10 working days. The landlord later confirmed that the 10 working day response time would start from 24 September 2021, when the complaint was opened and that it was trying to arrange an internal meeting between the voids and repairs team for 4 October 2021 to discuss the issues raised.
On 3 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord for a response to the email she sent on 23 September 2021. Specifically, she asked the landlord to advise whether it would be fitting an external light and also to confirm whether it would agree to paint her bathroom door after it is fitted. The resident sent another email seeking a response on 5 October 2021.
An internal email dated 5 October 2021, explained that all internal works, including skimming of all walls at the property were completed as a complaint from voids, following a discussing with the resident during lockdown. The repairs to the outside fence were also completed, but there was no issue with the flagstones at that time. A further internal email the following day confirmed that the new bathroom door would match all others in the house and that a painter would need to be contracted to gloss the door once it had been fitted. The email also questioned why the flagstones hadn’t been dealt with by the voids team at the time.
In response the email the previous day another internal email dated 7 October 2021, explained that work was carried out at the property when the resident moved in, but that the landlord was unaware of any issues with the flagstones at that time. On the same day, follow on emails said that the landlord would visit the resident the following Monday and that she would be notified of the date to paint the bathroom door.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident an update to her stage one complaint. It said that the complaint was being investigated and that as part of it, the landlord would visit her on 11 October 2021 and respond to the stage one complaint by 22 October 2021.
The landlord attempted to visit the resident as agreed on 11 October 2021, but abandoned the visit as it was unable to find parking in the vicinity of the resident’s property. The landlord notified the resident of this at the time the visit was due to take place.
The same day, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord and resident exchanged emails during which the landlord apologised that it was unable to visit her that day and explained that it could not find parking near the property, and that to delay further would encroach on other work commitments. The landlord did not arrange an alternative date or time for the appointment to take place, at that time. In addition, the landlord asked whether the resident had raised the outstanding repairs from the void handover at the time, as it could not investigate historic issues that had already been addressed. It explained that it had hoped to discuss this in person. It also said that it had requested a date for the paving to be completed and noted that the external light was due to be fitted on 8 November 2021, and the issue with the gate would be dealt with on 16 November 2021. Other than the repairs to the paving, it asked the resident what other repairs were still outstanding. With regard to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two, the landlord explained that it would have to conclude the stage one complaint first.
The resident expressed her disappointment that the landlord did not visit as promised. She asked why the landlord had only just put forward a request to fix the paving when the repair had been on the system for almost three weeks, she also stated that she believed the repair should have been done as an emergency 18 months earlier. She added that with regard to the external light, when she requested the repair, there was confusion between two different teams as to who was responsible.
The following day, the email exchange continued. The landlord explained that given the amount of time that had passed since the tenancy started, the voids team would not be dealing with the repairs and that it would discuss the outstanding repairs with the repairs team, but in order to do this it would need the resident to provide a list of outstanding repairs. It also asked if the resident was seeking compensation for costs incurred.
In addition, the landlord asked the resident to refrain from sending duplicate pictures of the issues highlighted at the property as this was causing confusion. The resident responded that she had attached a list of outstanding jobs and that she would respond in a separate email regarding compensation. The resident had included photos of various aspects of the outside of the property, which she said showed the garden as it had been left by the voids team, with a missing back fence and deep slope from a muddy bank to a hard standing area, compared with what it looked like that day: a rear fence had been erected and the back garden area was all one level. The resident also included photos of a makeshift drain cover and a before and after photo of a drain surround, which in the resident’s opinion had been badly repaired.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 October 2021, for an update on the paving repair.
As part of an email exchange on 20 October 2021 and 21 October 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay and explained that it had been attempting to get a date for the repairs booked in. It explained that the voids manager wanted to visit the property on 22 October 2021. The resident replied the same day and stated that given the delay in response to the stage one complaint, she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two. The resident also added that she had asked the voids team to complete the repairs but that she had been told that she needed to discuss with repairs team, who then advised that the work should have been done by the voids team.
The landlord responded that it would provide a response to the stage one complaint following the visit on 22 October 2021 and reiterated that it couldn’t escalate the complaint to stage two until it had responded at stage one. It explained that it had arranged an internal meeting on 25 October 2021 to discuss the complaint and it would escalate after this date. The resident replied that she wanted the complaint escalated immediately on completion of stage one.
The resident received a response to her stage one complaint on 21 October 2021, in which the landlord explained that it would use the information obtained from the meeting on 22 October 2021 to provide further details regarding how to progress with the repairs. The response set out that the resident had stated that there were several outstanding repairs, which she stated she had raised at the voids stage and which included:
1. Bathroom door -you requested a panelled door to match others at the address.
2. Side and back paving stones to be removed, rear gate removed and fenced. Path to be created from back gate to back door.
3. Back garden to be made fit so tenant can maintain.
4. Pole to be removed from wall on back of property.
5. Outside lights to be replaced.
6. Gutter and drainpipes to be replaced.
7. Back drain cover to be provided to fit over 2 pipes.
8. Front drain and surrounding area rebuilt.
The response explained that since the resident had submitted her stage one complaint, the landlord had liaised with both the repairs and voids team to attempt to resolve the repairs listed and provide dates for this. The landlord noted that the bathroom door repair had been completed fully on 7 October 2021, that the external lights were due to be replaced on 8 November 2021 and the rear gate would be moved on 16 November 2021. It explained that the other repairs would be discussed at the meeting with the voids manager on 22 October 2021.
The landlord apologised that it had been unable to conclude the matter to the resident’s satisfaction. It acknowledged that its communication with the resident could have been better and to that end, upheld that part of the complaint. It concluded that with regard to the repairs listed, it needed further information, which it would gather on 22 October 2021, but partially upheld that element of the complaint. The landlord also explained that it would consider the resident’s request for compensation following conclusion of the stage two complaint.
The resident’s complaint was escalated and acknowledged on 21 October 2021, and she was advised that she should receive a response within 20 working days.
Landlord’s internal notes dated 25 October 2021, set out the details of the landlord’s visit to the property on 22 October 2021. The following was discussed:
1. Rear and side paving – the landlord acknowledged that the paving was on various levels to the side of the property and flagstones were not level at the rear of the property. The notes explained that the landlord had offered a couple of resolutions but that it would consider this further with an appropriate contractor. The resident confirmed that she was happy for the landlord to access the property externally with a contractor, if she was unavailable.
2. Outside guttering – the landlord confirmed that it was leaking in places and that it would arrange for repairs.
3. Drain at the front and rear and front downpipe – the landlord noted that the drain at the rear of the property was leaking into the garden and the front downpipe was not connected to the wall. It confirmed that both would be dealt with asap. With regard the drain at the front of the property, the landlord noted that the surround had been repaired but that it didn’t look finished. It confirmed that an operative would attend and tidy it up.
4. Damp in the bedroom – The landlord found no sign of damp at the time of the visit, although the landlord noted that the resident had said that she had cleaned it with bleach. Nevertheless, the landlord said that it would get this checked but also provided advice regarding condensation. Given that the resident had stated that items of clothing had been damaged by the mould, the landlord said that it would arrange for an insurance claim for to be sent to her.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 12 November 2021. It confirmed that the resident had complained about outstanding repairs to the property and had made a request for compensation and had sought a review of both of these issues. It also confirmed that as a result of a visit to the property the following repairs had been raised:
1. 8th November 2021- outside lights rear and front to be replaced.
2. 9th November 2021- front downpipe loose and hopper head.
3. 11th November 2021- washer waste pipe leaking, pipe to be extended.
4. 16th November 2021 – rear gate badly situated near to rear door, I believe this is to be removed and the gap fenced off.
5. 8th December 2021 – Diagnostic survey.
6. 21st December 2021– front gully surround raised.
The landlord explained that it was unable to carry out the diagnostic survey earlier than the date given and said that any findings from the survey would be actioned by the repairs team.
In addition, it confirmed that a contractor had been procured for the work on the garden, it explained that given the location of the property and the scale of work required there were some logistical concerns but that the work would commence on 15 November 2021.
With regard to the compensation, the landlord referred to the telephone conversation between them the previous day in which it explained how it calculated compensation awards. It confirmed that both parties had mutually agreed to discuss compensation once all repairs had been completed. The landlord concluded that it had upheld the complaint and acknowledged that some of the repairs had not been completed during the voids process as it would have hoped. It noted that some of the delays could be attributed to the Covid pandemic and that as a result the landlord had experienced some difficulties when procuring materials and contractors. The landlord apologised for the issues the resident had experienced and confirmed that this was the final stage of the complaint’s procedure.

Post complaints process

This Service notes that following on from the stage two response some of the repairs listed were completed on the days stated but other jobs were cancelled and remained outstanding on 3 February 2022. In an email to the landlord on 3 February 2022, the resident provided an update of the required actions listed in the stage two response. She said that:
1. The downpipe had been repaired but the hopper head was still loose.
2. The work to the leaking washer waste pipe had been cancelled.
3. The work to the rear gate was still outstanding.
4. The diagnostic survey had been completed but that she was awaiting a repair that had been highlighted as part of this.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it was reviewing its handling of her complaint and it noted that it had failed to discuss compensation following completion of all the outstanding repairs, as it had promised in its stage two response. The landlord offered £700 compensation in recognition of the delays in getting the repairs completed and the stress and inconvenience of having to repeatedly chase repairs and appointments. It was also to recognise that its complaint handling could have been better. The landlord apologised for the resident’s experience throughout.
The resident refused the landlord’s offer of compensation and in a separate email to this Service on 12 April 2023, explained that all the repairs listed in the stage two response had been completed, but that she was experiencing issues with damp and condensation. She explained that she still experienced issues when trying to book a repair and said that it involved several emails and phone calls.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

a. Be fair.

b. Put things right.

c. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

The landlord provided information and photographs of the property both before and after the void works had been completed, and it is clear that internally the property underwent an extensive update. With regard to the outside of the property, photographs show that the garden was fiercely overgrown and neglected. The landlord arranged for rubbish to be removed from the site and cut back the overgrown grass and bushes.
However, it is noted that following void works, the property was lacking a fence to the rear of the property and fences that were in situ were old and broken. On its quality post inspection sheet, the landlord noted that the external condition, which included the paths, gulleys, walls and fences was good. However, photographs of paths and fences appear to show otherwise.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that the landlord is responsible for the curtilage fencing, walls and gates. The lettable standards policy explains that if there is any outstanding voids works, the resident will be made fully aware of what this is and when it would be rectified. It is noted that the work to the rear and side fences had been completed following a discussion with the resident after the tenancy start date and during the national lockdown. Nevertheless, this Service is of the opinion that taking into account the landlord position regarding repairs and its lettable standard and having had sight of the post void inspection sheet, the fences should have been repaired/replaced as a matter of course and the resident should not have needed to chase this repair.
This Service has reviewed photographs of the garden before and after it was cleared and acknowledges that the garden was in a much better condition after the void works had been completed. However, given the level of original overgrowth, even after the landlord had cleared it, the garden was still in a condition that it would have proven difficult to maintain to a good standard. With regard to the footpaths and hardstanding areas, according to the repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to both, and consequently should have ensured that these were safe and free from trip hazards. Photographs show that the paths and the hardstanding areas were uneven. The landlord’s lettable standard states it will ensure the garden is tidy and free from rubbish.
The resident has provided photographs of large cracks in walls, which were uncovered when wallpaper was stripped off. The landlord arranged for all walls to be replastered and did not charge rent for 6 weeks whilst the repairs were taking place. This Service acknowledges that during the voids process the landlord repaired a crack to the wall in the front bedroom. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if it had been aware of the other cracks in the walls it would have also taken steps to repair these. Once the landlord was notified of the cracks by the resident, it made arrangements for repairs to be carried out. The landlord’s repairs policy states that appointable repairs will be carried out within 20 working days and whilst the landlord exceeded this timescale, it should be noted that the country was in a national lockdown and this would have impacted on service times. Therefore, the delay was reasonable given the factors that were outside the landlord’s control.

The landlord’s handling of repair works to the property

The resident has stated that she made several requests for repairs to her property and garden between the tenancy start date and the date she submitted a formal complaint. Information provided by the landlord shows that it attended an emergency call to the property in relation to the footpath on 13 August 2021, but it was unable to complete the repair as the tenant was unavailable. Given that the landlord has shown that it had been made aware of the hazardous path from at least 12 August 2021, it is reasonable to expect, that following the resident’s communication on 7 September 2021, where she reiterated her concerns about the footpath, the landlord to have taken action to eliminate the hazard.
In addition, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out that if a customer has reported high level of repairs over a set period of time, an inspection will be carried out to the property to determine the cause of the repairs. Whilst it is noted that the landlord attended the property on 23 September 2021, and agreed to resolve the issue of the flagstones, the only action that took place following this meeting was the replacement of the bathroom door. The landlord also agreed to fix the outside lights, but this does not appear to have happened until 8 November 2021. The landlord was due to attend the property on 11 October 2021, but failed to attend as it could not find a parking space in the vicinity of the property. The landlord then attended the property on 22 October 2021, following the conclusion of the stage one complaint.
On visiting the property, the landlord eventually offered possible solutions to deal with the hazardous footpath and agreed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the other repairs raised. Work was scheduled to the footpath for 15 November 2021 and other repairs were programmed to start on various dates, the earliest being 8 November 2021.
Given that the uneven path and broken flagstones in the garden would have posed a hazard, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have made this safe within 24 hours and to have carried out the repair within 20 working days, as set out in the repairs and maintenance policy. Other than the repair to the bathroom door, the landlord failed to deal with any of the repairs raised by the resident as part of her stage one complaint within the agreed 20 working day timescale. The majority of the repairs were completed in November 2021 and early December 2021, with some outstanding into 2022 and the resident was constantly chasing updates on repairs. This Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repair works to the property.
The landlord made an offer of redress to the tenant almost 16 months after the conclusion of the stage two complaint. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised and reviewed its response following completion of the internal complaints process, and also that it is sought to learn from its mistakes. However, this Service notes that the review took place over a year after the resident had completed the complaints process and its offer of redress did not go far enough in addressing the detriment to the resident, the inconvenience to her and the time and trouble chasing repairs. It is also noted that although the landlord gave the resident an action plan for the completion of repairs in its stage two response, some of these remained outstanding after the date.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service finds that there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repair works to the property.

Reasons

The landlord was aware that at least one fence was missing from the property, which meant that the garden was not secure. It was also aware that a second fence was broken and needed replacing. However, it failed to deal with these repairs as part of its voids work and whilst it noted that the work was outstanding, it did not complete the work until the resident requested it.
The resident maintains that she reported repairs on many occasions from the start of her tenancy and whilst the landlord only provided communication from 7 September 2021, it is clear that the landlord failed to address the repairs within timescales published in its policy, and this caused a detriment to the resident. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord offered redress 16 months after its final complaint response, its offer did not go far enough to address the issues highlighted in this report.

Order

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Re-offer the £700 it already offered in recognition of the delays in handling repairs to the property and for the stress, inconvenience and detriment to the resident of having to repeatedly chase repairs and appointments.
2. Pay the resident an additional £300 for the time and trouble and the impact on the resident in pursuing the repairs.
The landlord must demonstrate its compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

This Service recommends that the landlord reviews it lettable standard, to make it clearer to residents what they should expect in terms of the condition of the garden when it is let to them.