London Borough of Hounslow (202229239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229239

London Borough of Hounslow

22 April 2024

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 handling of the resident’s request for a hedge to be replaced.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 1996. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a two bedroom maisonette. The resident lives with her husband.
4. It is evident that the resident had previously experienced issues with the hedge at the front of her property which had been raised with the landlord. The Ombudsman is unaware of the outcome of these issues raised. However, the resident raised a report on 6 May 2022 that the hedge at the front of her property had died.
5. Subsequently, on 13 May 2022, internal emails show that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the lack of action regarding the issue. In response, the landlord sought a quote for hedge replacement. However, on 1 June 2022, internal emails indicated that the landlord denied approval for hedge replacement as it was the resident’s responsibility.
6. The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 July 2022 and confirmed that it would be unable to replace the hedge or provide a fence as the resident held responsibility for the garden. The resident advised the landlord that as she had already raised a complaint, she would now pursue the complaint to stage 2. It is important to note that the landlord had not logged the complaint made at stage 1 and therefore not provided a stage 1 response at this stage.
7. On 11 July 2022, the resident raised, what she believed to be, a stage 2 complaint with the landlord. They key points were as follows:
   1. She belonged to the elderly garden maintenance scheme, provided by the landlord, and had informed the gardeners 3 years prior that part of the hedge had died. Since then, high winds had caused the dead wood to blow away, leaving a “gaping hole.”
   2. The resident raised this again with the gardeners in April 2022, who advised they would report it to their manager.
   3. The resident had not received a response so contacted the garden manager, who attended the resident’s property and suggested the replacement of 1 hedge plant. The resident said that would be insufficient and suggested a fence be installed. The garden manager advised the landlord would have to make that decision.
   4. The resident spoke to the landlord on 7 July 2022 who advised they would not replace the hedge. They stated that if they did, others would want the same.
8. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 29 July 2022. It explained the chronology of the complaint. It did not uphold the complaint and stated that the elderly garden maintenance scheme did not include replacing hedges.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2022. She stated that her complaint was at stage 2 as she had previously made a complaint over the telephone in May 2022. The landlord said she had made a complaint on 11 July 2022, which was logged at stage 1 and responded to on 29 July 2022. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 7 August 2022. The resident chased a response on 21 September 2022 and 3 November 2022.
10. On 11 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and set out the history of the complaint. It said it could not see any grounds for escalation to stage 2. The resident responded and said the whole procedure could have been “handled better” and that her problem had not been resolved. The landlord acknowledged escalation to stage 2 on 2 December 2022.
11. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 4 January 2023. It reiterated the chronology of the complaint. It did not uphold the complaint and stated that, while it was sympathetic of the situation, it was its policy that the maintenance of hedges was a resident’s responsibility.
12. In referring to this Service, the resident said they had never been informed it was their responsibility to maintain hedges and advised a hedge had been replaced previously by the landlord when it had died. She said both her and her husband were pensioners, they maintain the garden themselves but did not see why they should have to pay to replace the hedge.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

13. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that a resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of fences, gates, paths, and any garden or area that forms part of a property or its boundary. It further states that the resident will keep in reasonable order any garden which comes with the property.
14. The landlord’s complaint policy, in place at the time, had a 2 stage complaint process. It will respond at stage 1 within 15 working days and will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. When making a Stage 2 complaint, the landlord states that a resident must explain in what way they believe the complaint was not addressed properly at Stage 1

Hedge

15. The resident is part of the elderly garden maintenance scheme, under which the landlord provides contracted gardeners to undertake pruning and grass cutting.
16. The resident said the gardener mentioned about replacing the dead section of hedge with a single additional hedge plant to fill the gap. However, when the resident mentioned the need for 3 new hedge plants or a fence, the gardener advised her to discuss it with the landlord. It is important to note that there is no evidence confirming when these discussions occurred. The landlord must ensure that their gardeners understand the policy. By initially suggesting the replacement of 1 hedge plant, the gardener created a level of expectation in the resident that the hedge plants could be replaced. However, it was appropriate of the gardener to refer the resident to the landlord.
17. The resident reached out to the landlord on 6 May 2022, and enquired about the landlord providing a replacement hedge. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded. The resident made a formal complaint on 13 May 2022. However, even after that, there is no evidence that the landlord addressed the matter until 7 July 2022. This lack of timely communication was unsatisfactory. A prompt response from the landlord would have demonstrated commitment to resolving the issue, shown it was taking it seriously, and offered an earlier resolution to the matter.
18. The landlord responded on 7 July 2022 and advised it would be unable to replace the hedge as it fell under the resident’s responsibility. This was a reasonable response and in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, it would have been useful for the landlord to have linked its response to the resident’s tenancy agreement, highlighting her responsibilities. Doing so, could have saved confusion, and would have provided clarity to the situation sooner.
19. The landlord reiterated its reasoning in its stage 1 response. It highlighted that it would be unable to replace the hedge as the resident held the responsibility. This was an appropriate response and confirmed the landlord’s position. While the Ombudsman understands that the resident did not wish to pay for the replacement plants, the landlord was entitled to decide it would not replace the hedging.
20. The landlord responded again at stage 2 and appropriately reiterated its position. It again highlighted that the resident was responsible for the garden maintenance.
21. Throughout this complaint, the resident raised that the landlord had previously replaced a section of the hedge when it had died. The Ombudsman is not aware of the circumstances of that hedge situation. Any hedge previously replaced by the landlord would not bind the landlord to always replacing hedging. The landlord is entitled to use its discretion and consider the individual circumstances of each case when making a decision outside of the documented tenancy responsibilities or policies. It may have been useful though for the landlord to have set out more clearly its reasoning as to why it would not replace the hedge in this case, particularly if the resident had had a different service offer previously.
22. Overall, the landlord initially delayed in addressing the resident’s issue. When it finally responded, it informed the resident that it would not replace the hedge and cited the resident’s tenancy agreement. Whilst entitled to make this decision the landlord could have communicated its stance more promptly. Failing to do so led the resident to spend additional time pursuing a resolution and impacted on the landlord and resident relationship.
23. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s request for her hedge to be replaced.
24. A compensation order has been made for £50 to reflect the delay in responding to the resident’s request for the landlord to replace the hedge.

Complaint handling

25. On 13 May 2022, internal emails show the landlord received a formal complaint from the resident. However, no evidence has been provided to show that this was logged as a formal complaint and therefore that it was not acknowledged or responded to as one. The landlord needs to ensure it has robust systems in place to record and acknowledge complaints. Not doing so, caused the resident to raise another formal complaint and delayed a response being given, which would have frustrated the resident.
26. Further to this, when the resident raised another complaint, she set out that it was a stage 2 complaint. The landlord failed to explain that it had not logged the initial complaint and that it was therefore going to treat the new complaint as stage 1. This caused the resident to expend time explaining to the landlord why she saw her email as a stage 2 complaint. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have clearly explained its reasoning in this case and the complaint handling procedure to ensure clarity and understanding.
27. Following the stage 1 response, the resident responded and explained that she still felt that her second complaint was a stage 2 complaint to the landlord. While the landlord responded and said it was discussing escalation to stage 2, this was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to explain the complaints procedure to the resident and acknowledge that it had failed to log her initial complaint in May 2022 at stage 1. This was a missed opportunity to improve the landlord and resident relationship.
28. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 7 August 2022. The landlord responded on 12 August 2022 to advise it would triage her request and respond in due course. The resident had to chase the landlord a further 2 times for a response and did not receive one until 7 November 2022; 60 working days after her escalation request. This is not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling code (the Code). Landlords need to ensure the systems they have place are robust and enable complaints to be tracked and responded to in a timely manner. Not doing so led the resident to expend time chasing a response and ultimately delayed her receiving the outcome of her complaint.
29. The landlord responded to the resident on 11 November 2022 and explained that, as per its policy, the resident’s request did not meet the grounds for escalation. However, in her escalation request on 7 August 2022, the resident had clearly set out the issue with which she was not happy. It is unacceptable that it took the landlord 2 months to inform the resident of its decision. Not providing a response sooner caused the resident to expend time chasing a response and was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
30. Further to this, the Code sets out that where a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed. Where the landlord declines to escalate, it must communicate its reasons clearly in writing. The resident had set out clearly to the landlord why the complaint was not resolved yet the landlord failed to explain why it would not escalate. The lack of clarity showed a disregard to the resident’s concerns especially given the length of time that had passed since the request had been initially made.
31. The landlord escalated the stage 2 complaint on 2 December 2022, and responded in accordance with its policy on 4 January 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delays in handling of the complaint. The Code emphasises that residents should be central to a landlord’s complaint process, yet this principle was not evident in how the landlord handled this case. The lack of a resident-centred approach likely frustrated the resident, who had to persistently seek a response, resulting in further delay in resolving the issue.
32. Overall, the landlord failed to have an effective and robust system in place to ensure complaints are logged, acknowledged, and responded to within the correct timescales. It failed to take a resident focussed approach to its complaint handling. It failed to acknowledge and apologise for the delays. Its communication lacked clarity and caused confusion to the resident who had to expend time chasing a response. The complaints process was, overall, protracted and would have frustrated the resident who was awaiting an outcome for her complaint.
33. Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
34. Considering all the failings identified above, an order for compensation has made for £250, made up of the following:
    1. £50 for its failure to log the initial complaint at stage 1.
    2. £50 for its failure to properly explain the complaints process to the resident.
    3. £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request.
    4. £50 for its failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
    5. £50 for the time taken by the resident to pursue the complaint.

Determination

35. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her hedge to be replaced.
36. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £300, made up the following:
    1. £50 for the failings identified in its handling of the hedge issue.
    2. £250 for the failings in its complaint handling.
38. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.