Home Group Limited (202312599)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312599

Home Group Limited

29 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and concerns about:
1. responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
2. rodents at the property, removal of ivy, pointing, doorstep repairs and fly-tipping.
3. removal of concrete planters.
4. damage to cables.
5. graffiti, gate and letter box repairs.
6. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2014. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat with a shared front garden and sole access to a rear garden. The landlord said that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident stated in complaint correspondence with the landlord and us that he is visually impaired and has other health conditions.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including common parts. It states that, if the property has a garden, the resident will be responsible for maintaining it in a reasonably tidy condition.
The tenancy agreement does not state who is responsible for pest control at the property. However, the tenancy handbook states that residents should contact the landlord if they have a problem with pests. It says:
1. it will ask questions to establish who is responsible and what the next steps are.
2. if the responsibility lies with the resident it will tell them who they need to contact to deal with the infestation.
3. if the pest issue is as a result of a structural problem in the property, then it will be the landlord’s responsibility to fix it.
The landlord has internal pest control guidance for its staff. This states that removal of pests within a property is the resident’s responsibility, even when there is a structural issue. It says residents should be directed to local authority services, for which there may be a charge. It goes on to say that the landlord will complete structural repairs once there is no longer a pest issue.
The landlord sets out online that it aims to resolve standard repairs within 28 days.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident made contact with the landlord at the end of April 2023, reporting an issue with rats at the property. He said:
1. pest control he had arranged considered there may be an issue with the drains.
2. there was a large amount of ivy growing at the front of the property and he asked if this could be dealt with by the landlord.
3. rubbish was coming into his back garden as the property was positioned at the end of the street.
4. he was struggling to keep the inside of his property clean due to his health conditions.
In response the landlord questioned whether there were visible signs of where the rats were entering. It said it could arrange for hole/gaps to be filled after pest control had advised there was no longer a rat issue. It directed the resident to seek support from the local authority, or support worker if he had one, for assistance in maintaining the property and helping with rubbish.
On 12 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of issues he had reported. Amongst other things he said:
1. ivy removal was still outstanding and this was needed for pest control.
2. rubbish was entering his garden, and this could be contributing to the rat issue. He queried if the height of his garden wall/fence could be increased and if CCTV could be installed to identify how rubbish was getting into his garden.
3. work completed by the landlord to clear graffiti from a wall at his property was not to a good standard.
4. the back gate was fitted at an angle when the repair was completed and the old gate had been left behind by the contractor. He said he had tripped on this gate.
5. a letter box repair had been outstanding for 3 to 4 years.
The resident said he had not been able to sleep for fear of rat activity in the property and this had coincided with a time when he was recovering from a broken hip. He said he had expected the landlord to respond with more urgency to arrange ivy removal and he had incurred £180 in pest control costs.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It said:
1. ivy removal was arranged for 7 July 2023, and it was doing so as a gesture of goodwill in view of the urgency of the need to control the rodent issue.
2. it would attend upon receipt of pest control reports to resolve access points, but would not reimburse for the cost of pest control as this was the resident’s responsibility.
3. the resident should continue to report rubbish thrown into his garden, that he could request a property alteration for increasing the height of his fence, and that he could install his own CCTV if he wished.
4. it would work with the local authority and police should there be further reports of antisocial behaviour .
5. it had requested a further appointment to complete a gate repair on 19 July 2023.
6. it had arranged to attend to replace the letter box on 19 July 2023.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £85, made up of:
1. £35 for failings in the gate repair.
2. £15 for the disruption.
3. £35 for the failings in the letter box repair.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 23 July 2023. He said, amongst other things, that:
1. ivy was still blocking visibility so he could not progress pest control or allow the landlord to fill holes, which could trap rats in wall cavities.
2. during ivy removal the landlord had damaged an electric cable and he considered it should resolve this.
3. he was partially sighted.
4. he wanted the landlord to investigate the conduct of its officer (Mr R), whom the resident said had an “abhorrent attitude” and “no customer service skills”.
5. he wanted the landlord to review compensation and reimburse him for the cost of pest control.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response to his complaint on 9 September 2023. At this time it also responded to points raised by the resident on 22 August 2023 about responsibilities under the tenancy agreement. It said:
1. as a gesture of goodwill it would remove remaining ivy below the ground floor window and this would be completed after it had disposed of concrete planters located in the front garden.
2. should cabling be damaged during work undertaken by the landlord or its contractor, it would rectify this.
3. it had noted minor pointing work needed to the property when it attended on 23 August 2023. It said a further inspection would be undertaken once ivy work had concluded to ensure all areas of pointing were addressed.
4. the front garden was shared with the resident’s neighbour and it was their shared responsibility to keep the area tidy.
5. the resident was responsible for the upkeep of the rear garden. It said it had previously advised him to contact the estate agent, whose sign was in the resident’s garden, so this could be removed. It said the traffic cone in the garden would be collected by the local authority if it was left in the rear lane.
The landlord said that general pest control was the resident’s responsibility, but this would be clarified when it was notified by a resident of a pest issue. It attached details from its tenancy handbook relating to responsibilities for pest control. However, it said that as a gesture of goodwill, it would compensate the resident £180 for the pest control costs he had incurred. The landlord also said:
1. the resident had cancelled repairs for pointing work and to the front door step on 21 July 2023. It said it would re-raise these once ivy had been fully removed.
2. gate repairs raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint had been completed on 8 August 2023. It said a repair to the letter box, which had been scheduled for 20 July 2023 had been cancelled by the resident, and that he should make contact if he wanted this work to be re-raised.
3. it expected ivy, concrete planter removal, and brickwork repairs to be completed within 6 weeks.
The landlord apologised for the way in which correspondence had been undertaken by Mr R. It said this would be investigated in line with its policies and procedures. It offered the resident compensation of £215. This was made up of the £85 awarded at stage 1, £75 in recognition of complaint handling delays and £55 for the time and effort he had spent pursuing these matters.
Records show that the concrete planters were removed by the landlord on 30 August 2023. The landlord told us that further clearance of remaining ivy was completed on 14 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During his complaint the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to his gate and letter box going back to 2018. While his concerns about these repairs are acknowledged, the Ombudsman considers that it is reasonable for residents to raise timely complaints. Our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident from April 2023 onwards. The evidence shows that this was when the resident began to report issues with the repairs prior to raising his concerns as a complaint.

Responsibilities under the tenancy agreement

During his complaint and subsequently the resident queried his responsibility for the cost of pest control given that this was not set out in his tenancy agreement. The reasons for his questions around this are acknowledged. It would have been ideal for clarity on responsibility for pest control to be contained within his tenancy agreement from 2014. The landlord has said such information is included in more recent tenancy agreements. However, the fact it was not included does not mean responsibility for costs of pest control therefore fell to the landlord.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that general pest control was the responsibility of the resident but that this would be clarified after it was made aware of the problem. It also directed the resident to its tenancy handbook which states that if the pest infestation is in communal areas or is happening because of a structural problem, such as crack or gaps in the wall or floors, then it would be the landlord’s responsibility to fix it.
The landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident on the responsibilities for pest control. However, it is unclear when considering both the information contained within the tenancy handbook and the internal guidance to staff, whether it would reimburse/cover pest control costs when the problem was caused by a structural issue. The tenancy handbook states that if the infestation was due to a structural problem, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to “fix it”. It does not specify whether this is limited to fixing the structural problems, or extended to covering the costs of removing pests. However, the internal guidance to staff states that the removal of pests within a property is the resident’s responsibility, even when there is a structural issue. It says that the landlord will compete the repair work once there is no longer a pest issue. This does not give any direction or guidance on circumstances when it would cover the costs of pest control. But it would be unreasonable for the landlord not to give consideration to this in circumstances where a pest problem has been caused by a structural issue.
We acknowledge that the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident’s pest control costs in this case as a gesture of goodwill. But, in light of the lack of clarity within the tenancy handbook and internal guidance, we have recommended that the landlord review this information with reference to the Ombudsman’s own guidance on pest control. This should be done with the aim of providing clarity on circumstances when the landlord will consider covering/reimbursing pest control costs. The landlord told us that it does not have a specific pest control policy. We have also recommended that it considers implementing one so that its approach to dealing with pests is clear for staff and residents alike.
The resident raised concerns that his tenancy agreement was not clear on whether he was responsible for maintaining the front garden, which is shared with his neighbour. He referred to the handbook he received at the start of his tenancy. This says that a shared area, such as a communal garden would be the landlord’s responsibility to maintain. The resident’s tenancy agreement from 2014 states that, if the property has a garden, it will be the resident’s responsibility for maintaining it in a reasonably tidy condition. The landlord set out in its stage 2 response that it was the resident’s and his neighbour’s shared responsibility to maintain the front garden. It said there was no communal area linked to the property. The resident sent the landlord extensive communication on this point both prior to and after the stage 2 response. During this time the landlord explained that its tenancy agreements were not specific to each property, but that responsibility for maintaining the front garden fell to the resident and his neighbour. It further explained that it was not a communal garden and there was no service charge payable by the resident in respect of maintaining it. While it is clear that the resident remains dissatisfied with the response from the landlord, it had provided him with a reasonable response, explaining why he was responsible for maintaining the front garden. That response was also in line with information contained within the tenancy agreement.
We have made recommendations that the landlord reviews its guidance around circumstances it will cover the cost of pest control and that it consider implementing a pest control policy. However, we have found no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about his responsibility for pest control, and maintenance of the front garden. It provided a reasonable response to queries he raised about this.

Rodents at the property, removal of ivy, pointing and doorstep repairs and fly-tipping

Rodents and ivy removal

The resident told the landlord in late April 2023 of issues that he was having with rats. At this time he said that pest control had attended and that they considered there may be a drain issue. The landlord responded the next day querying whether there were visible signs of where rats were getting in. It appropriately advised the resident of steps it would take to complete any repairs to fill gaps/holes once pest control had confirmed the rodent issue had been resolved. But it took no apparent action around the resident’s reports that there may be a drain issue. While we have seen no evidence that any issue with the drain was subsequently identified to be causing or contributing to the pest issue, the landlord should reasonably have considered steps to investigate this. That it did not was a failing. The Ombudsman’s pest guidance to landlords states that landlords should investigate the root cause fully before deciding who is responsible and ensure appropriate steps are taken to address issues contributing to the pest problem.
The landlord began to take steps to arrange removal of ivy in the front garden after the resident provided photos of this on 9 May 2023. It is understandable that the resident wanted this work to be completed as soon as possible, but it is clear it would take time for the landlord to arrange. This was particularly as maintenance of the front garden would ordinarily have been the responsibility of the resident. However, communication between the landlord and the resident during May 2023 demonstrates that it took reasonable steps to manage his expectations around this. It advised him that it would need to obtain quotes and have the work agreed by a manager, before booking a contractor.
Removal of the ivy took place on 3 July 2023, but the resident was unhappy with work completed. He contacted the landlord expressing his concerns on 5 July 2023. In response the landlord stated that ivy removal remained the resident’s responsibility and that it had agreed removal as a gesture of goodwill. It said that the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 2 if he remained unhappy. But this response did not attempt to establish why the resident was unhappy with the work. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so given that it had agreed to undertake ivy removal. The resident later said that ivy had not been sufficiently removed to allow pest control to inspect. Following this the landlord arranged to inspect the property, and work completed, on 12 July 2023, and that was appropriate. At this time it noted that ivy removal was acceptable. It noted a small area where it could not be removed around plant pots due to a cable. It said that the resident would either need to remove ivy himself in this area or re-route the cable.
There was a large amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord about ivy removal and the removal of concrete planters during July and August 2023. It is unclear precisely what led to the landlord agreeing further ivy removal. However it confirmed to the resident at the end of August 2023 that it would do so following the removal of concrete planters in the front garden. The landlord had said in its stage 2 response that it expected this work to be completed within 6 weeks. It would have been reasonable for it to ensure this was done, or communicate with the resident if there was difficulty doing so within this time. But further ivy removal was not completed until mid-November 2023. Records we have seen do not detail this removal work, which is a shortcoming in record keeping. Nor have we seen records related to the landlord arranging this work. It is therefore unclear why work was delayed. There is also no evidence it appropriately communicated with the resident about the work. That it did not was a failing, particularly as it was aware he was awaiting ivy clearance before completing pest control work.
Following its agreement to undertake this work, and further removal in August 2023, it should reasonably have ensured timely action to do so. The resident had experienced an issue with rat activity, which he said in August 2023 was both internal and external. We have seen no record of further reports of rat activity to the landlord post–August 2023, but it was understandable that the resident was concerned to ensure full ivy removal was completed as soon as possible so that pest control could be concluded. We acknowledge that there were some obstacles to completing full removal in July 2023 due to a cable, and that action was subsequently needed to remove concrete planters. But following this, and agreeing to undertake further ivy removal, it then delayed for more than 2 and a half months before doing so. The prolonging of this work can only have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Pointing and doorstep repairs

Records we have seen show the landlord raised pointing work and repairs to steps on 18 and 20 July 2023. However, these were cancelled by the resident. The resident later said he had done so as he did not want holes filled before pest control work was completed, in line with advice he had received. The landlord noted at this time that the resident was to call to re-raise work. However, subsequently, in its stage 2 response it told the resident it would arrange for this work to be completed within the next 6 weeks.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord maintained adequate contact with the resident about arranging these repairs following its stage 2 response. It was inevitable that the delay in completing removal of remaining ivy would have impacted on the progress of this work. The landlord should have communicated appropriately with the resident about this. It told the resident in December 2023, following completion of further ivy clearance, that it would arrange for pointing work to be completed. But we have seen no evidence repairs were re-raised or completed. However it is clear from the resident’s email to the landlord of 9 January 2024 that work was still outstanding at that time. That was significantly beyond the 6–week timescale the landlord had provided in it stage 2 complaint response. This would have caused inconvenience and frustration for the resident. It demonstrated a lack of appropriate co-ordination by the landlord to ensure outstanding work was completed within timescales it had provided in its stage 2 response. While records we have seen do not show when work was completed, the resident told us in July 2024 that there were no outstanding repairs. However, we have ordered that the landlord make contact with the resident to ensure that all necessary work has been completed.

Fly-tipping

The resident told the landlord of issues he had with rubbish and fly-tipping into his back garden in extensive correspondence since the end of April 2023. The landlord correctly advised the resident to report fly-tipping to the local authority and police. It also explained to the resident that it would not be logging the rubbish in his garden as antisocial behaviour as there was no evidence of a perpetrator. It also acknowledged there were many ways in which rubbish could have got into the resident’s garden. After the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord provided a reasonable response explaining why it would not be installing CCTV or raising the height of the resident’s fence. It also advised him of how he could request a property alteration around fence height. In subsequent communication and in the stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that it would reconsider matters if either the police or local authority made recommendations around CCTV or the height of the fence, which it said was standard. It also reiterated advice provided previously about steps the resident could take to arrange removal of a traffic cone and an estate agents sign. These responses were reasonable.
However, while the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about fly-tipping were reasonable, there is evidence that it failed to consider appropriately the full circumstances of the case. It is clear the resident had highlighted some of the issues he had in maintaining his property due to his health conditions. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to the local authority or any support worker for assistance. But the resident told the landlord this support was not imminent as he was on a long waiting list. In these circumstances there was more the landlord should reasonably have done to consider other assistance it could offer to the resident. This was particularly in view of how the waste/rubbish could contribute to the pest issue he was experiencing. It was not until mid-August 2023 that the landlord offered to obtain a quote for cleaning the resident’s back yard, to be paid for by him through instalments. The reasons for this clearance not going ahead are unclear from records we have seen. But the landlord should reasonably have taken earlier steps to explore options to support him in addressing waste/rubbish at the property. The resident told the landlord at the beginning of June 2023 that he had recently broken his hip and he had previously told it he had other health conditions. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance to landlords on pests, it would have been appropriate for it to support him to address the waste at his property. It was positive that the landlord eventually took steps in August 2023 to offer to obtain quotes for clearance of garden rubbish. But this action was delayed, coming more than 2 and a half months after it had been told of the issue. The lack of assistance in dealing with the waste/rubbish at the property can only have added to the distress experienced by the resident because of the rodent issue.
We have found failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rodents, its handling of ivy removal, pointing and doorstep repairs and fly-tipping that amount to maladministration. These failings meant that work to remove ivy and complete repairs was unreasonably prolonged, and that the resident was not offered timely support to address rubbish in his garden. With consideration of the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident to recognise distress, inconvenience and frustration caused by its failings.
Following correspondence from the resident on 21 December 2023, when he outlined that ivy had begun to grow again, the landlord obtained a quote for weed treatment of the ivy. It told us in January 2024 that it planned to complete this work in the next 2 weeks. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to confirm there are no further issues with ivy growth.

Concrete planters and damage to cables

Concrete planters

The resident stated in his escalation request that he wanted the landlord to remove concrete planters. He further complained to the landlord on 31 August 2023 about mess left behind following removal of the planters the previous day. He said that crumbled concrete had been left over the shared front garden and that he had hurt his ankle walking across this. While the landlord responded to this email, it did not confirm what it would do to resolve any debris left following removal of the planters. This was despite the resident questioning what it would do. In the stage 2 response, which it sent to the resident the following week, while noting the resident’s dissatisfaction with removal of the concrete planters, it did not specifically address this point. Instead it referred to steps it would take to remove the planters. But this work had already been completed on 30 August 2023. The landlord should have considered appropriately what the resident had said about debris left after the removal of the planters. He subsequently said he had needed to spend time contacting the landlord in order to arrange for concrete debris to be cleared. While it is apparent that this would not have been a significant inconvenience to the resident, it would still have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise that he had needed to go to the time and trouble of doing so. That it did not was a failing.

Damage to cables

The resident told the landlord during his escalation request of 23 July 2023 that a cable was damaged during the ivy removal on 3 July 2023. The landlord’s inspection of 12 July 2023 did not note it had found any damage to cables. However, the resident later said that he had discovered cable damage and had notified the landlord, who sent an emergency electrician to assess this. The resident said the cables did not relate to any of his services and that the landlord’s electrician said the cable was not live. It is unclear how any damage to cables occurred. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it would take responsibility for any damage to cables caused by its contractors during ivy removal. We have seen no records showing any work has been completed to rectify any damage to cables. But there is also no indication the resident responded to the landlord’s offer in its stage 2 response to procure a specialist to repair any damage. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. However, we have recommended that the landlord check with the resident whether any work is outstanding in respect of this.

Graffiti, gate and letter box repairs

Gate

The resident told the landlord of issues with a gate repair in his initial complaint of 12 June 2023. In response the landlord awarded the resident £35 for failings in previous gate repairs and £15 for the disruption caused. As outlined above, this investigation does not extend to these previous repairs. But it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge failings in its service.
The resident told the landlord at the end of April 2023 that an old gate had been left in his garden following a repair by its contractor. But there is no evidence the landlord took any appropriate steps to arrange for this to be removed. It did not do so until the resident raised a complaint in June 2023. Following this, the gate was eventually collected on 17 July 2023. But that was more than 2 and a half months after the resident had raised the matter. The landlord should reasonably have taken steps at an earlier stage to arrange removal of this gate. That it did not was a failing. The resident should not have had to spend time and trouble chasing the landlord and complaining before this was done. It was also an inconvenience and we note that the resident said he tripped on the gate. In his escalation request the resident raised his concerns about the length of time taken to arrange collection of the gate. But the landlord did not address this point in its response. It should reasonably have done so. It would have been appropriate for it to apologise for this and the time the resident spent chasing the matter.
The landlord said that it had arranged for someone to attend on 19 July 2023 to complete a gate repair. Its target for completing standard repairs within 28 days, and its attendance was around a week outside of this target. Subsequently the landlord noted that it had attended on 18 July 2023, but work was not completed until 8 August 2023 due to the need to arrange materials. But in his escalation request the resident said he only became aware the landlord was awaiting materials after he chased the repairs. While delays due to needing to arrange material may be unavoidable, the landlord should reasonably have communicated with the resident to let him know what was happening with this repair. That it did not do so was a failing.

Letter box

As noted earlier, this investigation has not considered the landlord’s handling of a previous repair to the resident’s letter box around 2018. However, we note that during the stage 1 response the landlord awarded the resident £35 in recognition of failings. The resident told the landlord of an outstanding letter box repair in mid-May 2023 but it was not until 8 June 2023 that it raised this repair. Given the target timescale of 28 days for standard repairs, this work should have been raised earlier to ensure timely attendance. That it was not was a failing. The landlord later said that it had attended the resident’s property at the end of June 2023 to take measurements for this work, which was outside its target for completing standard repairs. It said the resident then cancelled the repair work scheduled for July 2023. Later the resident said he did so as he did not want this work completed while he had an ongoing rodent problem. While the reasons for this are acknowledged, the landlord cannot be held responsible for this postponement of work. We have seen no evidence that the resident has re-raised a request for this work to be completed. However, we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to check whether any work is outstanding in respect of this.

Graffiti

The landlord took appropriate steps to attend to clear graffiti after the resident reported the matter in May 2023. It said in its stage 1 response that it would attend on 5 July 2023 to remove remaining graffiti. But it is apparent it had misunderstood the resident’s concern. He had said that work was not to a good standard as white paint had been used to cover graffiti when the rest of the wall was cream coloured. In later correspondence, the landlord said it had observed during its inspection of 12 July 2023 that graffiti had been removed so had cancelled further attendance. Yet the resident said in his escalation request that this was done without him receiving an explanation. He said he considered the work completed to look “unsightly”. But the landlord did not respond to this point in its stage 2 complaint response. If the landlord considered the work to cover graffiti had been completed to the appropriate standard then it should have clearly explained this to the resident. That it did not was a failing that meant the resident spent more time and trouble chasing the matter. It is unclear from records we have seen whether this issue has now been resolved. As such, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to check whether he has ongoing concerns about this.
While the landlord has acknowledged and compensated the resident for the impact of previous failings in gate and letter box repairs, it has not recognised other failings set out above. We have also found failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the work completed to clear graffiti. Overall we have found maladministration in its handling of this, and gate and letter box repairs. This caused the resident inconvenience and frustration, and meant he had to spend time and trouble chasing the landlord. A further award of compensation has been ordered to recognise the impact of these failings on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint was outside timescales set out in its complaint policy by approximately 1 week. While this was not a significant delay, it should reasonably have apologised for this in its eventual response. That it did not was a failing. Its stage 2 complaint response was more significantly delayed. It told the resident after receiving his escalation request that it would respond within 10 weeks, but that was not in line with timescales set out in its complaints policy. This, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), said it should provide a response within 20 working days. The landlord appropriately awarded the resident £75 in recognition of this delay. But it should reasonably have acknowledged and explained in earlier correspondence that the timescale of 10 weeks provided for a response was well in excess of its targets response times for stage 2 complaints. That it did not was a failing.
The resident complained about the conduct of an officer of the landlord, Mr R. In responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2, the landlord apologised for the way in which Mr R had undertaken correspondence with the resident. It said this would be investigated in line with its policies and procedures. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to disclose specific details of any action it took in respect of Mr R as a result the resident’s concerns. But its response gave no indication it had considered the specific concerns the resident had raised. For instance, amongst other things, the resident outlined his concerns about the lack of communication he received from Mr R about the inspection of 12 July 2023. The landlord should reasonably have demonstrated it had considered specific concerns the resident raised. While it apologised to the resident, it was not clear about whether it had found any shortcomings in the communication he received from Mr R. In fact, its response suggested the matter was still to be investigated. This meant the resident did not receive a full response to concerns he had raised. It was a failing that would have caused him frustration. In light of this, we have ordered that the landlord review the concerns the resident raised in his escalation request of 23 July 2023, and that it provide him with a full response to these.
We have identified other failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, which have been highlighted earlier in the report. For instance, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond appropriately to the concerns the resident raised about the work that had been completed to clear graffiti, and the delay in collecting the old gate following the repair. Overall we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Its failure to fully address points he had raised caused the resident frustration and meant he spent more time and trouble chasing responses. So far the landlord has awarded him £130 in recognition of complaint handling delays and time and trouble. But this does not adequately remedy the impact of the landlord’s failing upon him. In light of this, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, a further award has been ordered. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns the resident raised about responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and concerns about rodents at the property, removal of ivy, pointing, doorstep repairs and fly-tipping.
3. service failure in the landlord’s handling of removal of concrete planters.
4. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage to cables.
5. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of graffiti, gate and letter box repairs.
6. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be made in line with guidance on apologies included in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £750, made up of:
  1. £300 for the impact of failings identified in its handling of reports and concerns about rodents at the property, removal of ivy, pointing, door step repairs and fly-tipping.
  2. £200 for the impact of failings identified in its handling of gate and letter box repairs and graffiti. This includes the £85 previously awarded.
  3. £250 for the impact of failings identified in its complaint handling. This includes the £130 previously awarded.
3. make contact with the resident to ensure that necessary pointing and doorstep repair work has been completed.
4. check whether the resident has ongoing concerns about the work it previously completed to cover graffiti.
5. review the concerns raised in his escalation request of 23 July 2023 about his communication with Mr R, and provide the resident with a full response to these.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. contact the resident to check:
  1. if there are ongoing issues with ivy growth.
  2. whether any work is outstanding in respect of damaged cables.
  3. whether any work is outstanding in respect of letter box repairs.
  4. what vulnerabilities should be recorded for him.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review its internal guidance and information contained within its tenancy handbook about pest control. This should be done:
  1. with reference to the Ombudsman’s own guidance on pest control.
  2. with the aim of providing clarity on circumstances when it will cover/reimburse pest control cost when the issue has been caused by a structural problem.
2. consider implementing a pest control policy.