Abri Group Limited (202227515)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227515

Abri Group Limited

18 June 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:
1. The resident’s reports about the condition of the garden.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and his wife are joint tenants of a 2 bedroom house, owned by the landlord housing association. The house was a new build property completed in February 2019, shortly before the resident moved in. Their fixed term assured shorthold tenancy began February 2019. The couple live with their 2 children.
The landlord’s system notes recorded that the resident is partially sighted. During the course of his complaint, the resident told the landlord he was a person living with depression.
The landlord visited the property on 6 March 2019 and noted that the garden was ‘flooded’. It requested the internal logging of a defect order.
At a post-letting inspection visit of 29 April 2019 the resident raised with the landlord external flooding.

Scope of investigation

Under the rules of the (then) Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of a landlord within a reasonable period, usually considered as within 6 months of the matter(s) occurring. The resident expressed his complaint to the landlord in March 2022.
This Service has focused its investigation of the landlord’s handling of the heating provision from the point of the resident’s report made December 2021. The prior reports evident from the landlord’s records were in 2019. It is not considered reasonable to review the landlord’s handling of the matter from 2019. No formal complaint was brought to the landlord until 2022. This Service has accordingly considered matters arising in 2019 as important background where this is directly relevant to the landlord’s handling of matters from December 2021 onwards.

Summary of events

On 7 December 2021 during a call with the landlord, the resident raised ongoing issues caused by his waterlogged garden. He described it flooding repeatedly since he moved in. The resident was encouraged to send in photographic evidence.
On 11 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord with photographs of the garden. The resident described the conditions adversely impacting his family’s ability to use the garden.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord acknowledged the email and on 18 January 2022 confirmed it was investigating whether the issues could be considered a latent defect by the developer.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord advised the resident it was reviewing its position, having noted the property was no longer within its defect liability period and the issue not documented during that time. The resident returned to the landlord the same date. He referred the landlord to its prior notice from 2019. The landlord offered an inspection of his garden on 21 January 2022.
On 21 January 2022 an officer of the landlord and a consultant surveyor visited the property. The landlord’s record of the visit noted:
1. The garden was not ‘overly bad’, however the ground was frozen, which ‘did not help the (resident’s) case’.
2. The garden topsoil thickness met minimum National Housing Building Council (NHBC) standard. It would not be accepted as an NHBC claim or builder’s defect.
3. The natural conditions of the soil across the site were ‘not ideal’ for drainage but not the fault or oversight of a ‘contractor’.
On 24 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident a summary of its inspection. It stated the garden had sufficient drainage and the soil depth met NHBC guidelines. It said there was no fault or oversight of the developer and because it was not a build defect, it could not progress the matter further.
On 25 January 2022 the resident replied to the landlord saying:
1. The issues reported were ongoing since 2019 and referred for investigation 2 years prior.
2. The ground conditions were not representative on 21 January 2022 as it was frozen.
3. He had taken mitigation measures but these did not work. The level of waterlogging was impacting the ability of the household to enjoy the garden and was upsetting.
4. A comparison to other local gardens.
On the same date the landlord acknowledged his concerns. It said work was necessary to other properties as their drainage issues were ‘excessive’. It advised referring his comments for consideration by the attending surveyor.
On 31 January 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord seeking an update. The landlord replied on 2 February 2022 that it was awaiting response from the surveyor. The resident updated the landlord that the NHBC had informed him it was unable to assist him directly.
Later on 2 February 2022 the surveyor provided updated feedback to the landlord. The landlord copied the surveyor’s commentary into an email to the resident saying the following:
1. The garden issues were not previously recorded as a defect; although it had been ‘witnessed’, its condition was not severe or qualified as a ‘builder’s defect’. It could not therefore pursue a claim with the builder or the NHBC to progress the matter.
2. Acknowledgement the frozen conditions were not ‘ideal’ for inspection, however it did not ‘strike as being in poor condition’. It noted it did not have photographic evidence from the resident of flooding conditions and encouraged the resident to share pictures.
3. The surveyor did not advise that drainage was sufficient; the subsoil ground conditions across the site created ‘sub-optimal natural drainage’. A deeper topsoil replacement would improve drainage.
4. It differentiated between the resident’s garden and a neighbouring property.
The landlord noted also calling the resident and relaying the update verbally. The resident was recorded as ‘not happy’ with the feedback provided.
On 7 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. He explained conditions in the garden since 2019, efforts made to preserve grass, and the impact on the family’s use of the space. He described sinking conditions leading to a manhole cover protruding from the ground.
The landlord liaised internally on 11 February 2022 about the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s inspecting officer from January advised the garden was in a ‘good’ condition at the visit and the grass healthy. It referred to its inspection finding that it was not a defect or an NHBC claim. It considered photographs from the build stage that it said showed minimum top soil was used.
On 15 February 2022 the resident chased a response to his email of 7 February 2022. The landlord replied 2 days later and apologised for its delay. It advised the matter was with its homecare team to respond and he would be contacted no later than 25 February 2022.
On 28 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord requesting contact.
On 3 March 2022 the landlord contacted the resident by email. It acknowledged receipt of photographs and apologised for its lack of response. It said its homecare team would return to him by the end of the following day.
On 8 March 2022 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his concerns about the garden as he was still awaiting a response from its homecare team. The landlord logged the request as a complaint.
On 15 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint by email. It advised it would try to reply to his complaint within 10 working days. If it needed more time, it would get in touch.
The landlord’s complaint handler liaised with its internal services. It asked what advice might be provided to the resident to resolve the garden issue and was informed ‘there isn’t really any advice to give as there isn’t a problem’.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord provided a written response to the resident’s complaint. It said it did not uphold the complaint as the garden met NHBC requirements and the gathering water was within tolerance. It could not report the matter back to the developer.
The resident returned to the landlord the same date to request escalation of his complaint. He referred to there being clear and prolonged issues with the condition of his garden. He raised concern that he was being ‘fobbed off’. He forwarded updated photographs that showed severely water logged earth and pooling water on top of soil.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord called the resident to discuss his complaint. The resident described flooding in his garden since 2019 and raised concern about the lack of remedial action despite repeat reports. The landlord acknowledged his escalation request by email. It advised it would try to resolve the complaint within 20 working days. It explained the review process and the resident’s choice of forum. The resident confirmed on 31 March 2022 his choice of a customer panel meeting.
The landlord arranged with the resident for the panel meeting to be held on 27 June 2022. The minutes of the panel meeting noted the resident being provided opportunity to outline his complaint and desired outcome/s, on which the panel asked questions. The resident explained as follows:
1. The background of his reports to the landlord since 2019 and its prior acceptance of there being an issue.
2. The worsening of ground conditions over time, preventing his children playing. He raised concern about the conditions being a slip hazard and unpleasant. He described the children’s play equipment sinking 20cm into the ground, causing damage.
3. The conditions on the date of 21 January 2022 inspection being unrepresentative as the ground was frozen solid and he described his ordinary experience.
4. The landlord’s responses to date were contradictory about the efficacy of drainage and soil.
5. The surveyor’s suggestion that a deeper layer of soil would improve the garden.
6. The sinking/ compression of the soil over time had revealed the protrusion of a manhole cover, creating a trip hazard.
7. The landlord had directed him to NHBC but they would not assist.
8. The distress caused by being unable to enjoy the garden. The resident described living with depression and being unable to enjoy his garden causing him upset.
The landlord’s officer that accompanied the surveyor in January provided a view to the panel. He advised:
1. The NHBC guidelines were met as to the depth of topsoil. It was not considered a defect unless there was sitting water for any length of time.
2. An acknowledgement sub soil clay conditions did not drain well. The ‘only remedy’ was to dig out and add more topsoil.
3. It would deal with the manhole cover.
The landlord’s meeting minutes noted discussion between the panel and the landlord’s officer following the resident’s departure. A discussion was held about potential improvement works to the garden. The landlord’s officer advised a drainage system would cost thousands of pounds but might not solve the issue. It said digging out the clay to add deeper topsoil would cost ‘far too much for (the landlord) to be willing to do’. It also advised it required more evidence to consider if the garden issues could be classed a defect for an NHBC claim.
The landlord told the resident it would issue its decision by 6 July 2022. On 7 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord seeking the response letter. The landlord advised it was in progress and would be issued on/by 8 July 2022.
On 8 July 2022 the landlord provided to the resident its final complaint response. The reply stated:
1. A summarised background of the resident’s reports since December 2021.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The photo and video evidence provided by the resident only showed certain areas and was within normal limits for what might be expected in wet seasons. It did not show significant standing water 2 days after rainfall.
3. Advice about preparing the garden for colder months in line with NHBC guidance.
4. It would arrange for repair of the man-hole cover raised at the meeting.
5. It would need further evidence of the garden to assess further.

Post-complaint

On 9 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase progress of the works promised to the raised manhole cover. The landlord noted internally that no job had been raised and logged repair works necessary on 17 January 2023. On 19 January 2023 it emailed the resident and apologised that it had failed to arrange the promised work.
On 31 January 2023 the landlord attended the property and carried out works to the manhole cover. The resident subsequently raised concern about the quality of the works completed and provided to the landlord evidence of an ongoing raised gap. Further liaison resulted in updated visits in March and May 2023 to rectify the issue.
The resident continued to report water logging of his garden across February and March 2023. On 22 March 2023 the landlord noted it would complete a survey for potential works. It updated the resident on 29 March 2023 after he requested an update. On 29 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed an inspection and proposed the installation of a French drain.
The resident chased the landlord for an update following inspection on 17 and 21 April 2023. The landlord’s contractor completed works on 2 May 2023.
On 15 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord expressing concern that the drainage works had not prevented water logging. He attached photographs of a very boggy and water logged garden dated 5 and 10 May 2023.
The resident referred his complaint for investigation by this Service. He recounted distress caused by his family being unable to enjoy their garden. He explained this added pressure to his mental health from pursuing the issue.
In March 2024 this Service liaised with the landlord regarding information required from its records to support this complaint investigation.
On 26 March 2024 the landlord called the resident who confirmed to it that the garden issues were ongoing. The landlord advised it was willing to fund works to dig out and relay the garden in order to ‘close’ the complaint. The landlord confirmed its position by letter of the same date. It said:
1. It had assessed its complaint handling following contact from this Service.
2. On reflection it had noted it did not give clear advice.
3. There was unacceptable delay carrying out works promised.
4. It did not communicate appropriately about works to the manhole cover.
5. It offered £250 as an apology and gesture of goodwill.
6. It had failed to demonstrate ‘sufficient empathy’ or consideration to his vulnerabilities, particularly his visual impairment. It offered a further £250 as another gesture of goodwill.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

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

The landlord’s obligations

The National House Building Council (NHBC) defines requirements for the design and construction of new homes covered by its warranty and insurance. Its 2019 standards stated areas within 3m of the home should not be waterlogged, prevented by drainage or other means. It required other garden areas within 20m to have a minimum thickness of 100mm topsoil.
The landlord had a latent defects procedure outlining the steps it would take to ensure the rectification of defects arising from failures in design or materials that became apparent following the builder’s liability period.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy stated a commitment to ensure that all its homes were safe, warm and met the decent home standard. There are legislative requirements setting out what is considered to be a decent home. The standard requires that any such home be free of category 1 hazards as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Potential hazards relate to matters posing a risk of harm to the health or safety of occupants and may arise from a deficiency in the building or land. Potential hazards include deficiencies of drainage where this may result in health or other effects and risk of falls on level surface.
The landlord is required to have regard to a resident’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making/ actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord is also required to make reasonable adjustments taking into account a known disability.
The landlord had ‘putting things right’ guidance for its staff to assess appropriate redress, remediation and compensation to its customers. It impressed the importance of identifying remedial steps and redress relevant to the particular facts and the individual detriment.
The landlord’s complaints policy defined a complaint in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the Group, our own staff, or those acting on our behalf…’
Its customer relations procedure detailed its 2 stage complaint process:
1. At stage 1, the landlord would provide its formal response within 10 working days.
2. At stage 2, it would issue response within 20 working days.

If more time was needed, it would make contact with its customer to confirm the position, explain why and agree how it would keep them updated of progress.

The landlord’s customer relations procedure committed to its staff handling complaints sensitively. Where a resident may be vulnerable, based on its records or notice provided, the landlord was to refer to its reasonable adjustments policy to ensure they were appropriately supported.
The Code as then in force set out the following expectations:
1. It defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation…’
2. Outstanding actions were to be tracked and actioned in a timely manner with regular updates provided to the resident.
3. A requirement that a complaint be resolved at ‘the earliest possible opportunity’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the garden

At the point of the resident’s report to the landlord of ongoing flooding to his garden in December 2021, the landlord had logged it as a defect to investigate in 2019. As of December 2021, the landlord’s records were consistent with the understanding expressed by the resident; he had raised it and was awaiting further action/ response.
The landlord requested updated evidence; this was a reasonable request in view of the time that had passed. However, its response set across the first half of January 2022 failed to demonstrate awareness or a review of the relevant background. It did not show recognition of its previous log of garden flooding as a defect in March 2019 or its related prior contact with the resident. Instead, it told the resident by email of 19 January 2022 that no defect had been documented within the relevant period. The landlord’s response at this stage indicated a failure to conduct a reasonable review of its own records. While the landlord did refer the matter for review in line with its latent defect procedures, its position to the resident was inconsistent with its records and prior messaging. This placed the onus on the resident to bring relevant information to the landlord’s attention. This caused him unnecessary inconvenience and trouble.
On receipt of the resident’s further submissions and evidence, the landlord kept the resident updated in a timely manner mid-January 2022 of inspection arrangements. An appropriately qualified specialist was appointed to conduct the inspection together with a representative of the landlord. The landlord reported its findings in a reasonable timeframe.
A number of issues are however present in the landlord’s summary position of 24 January 2022. Firstly, the landlord summarised the surveyor view as that the garden had ‘sufficient drainage’. Consideration of the inspection record showed this was an inaccurate reflection of the surveyor’s advice. This misinterpretation or miscommunication of the expert view lead to incorrect advice being relayed to the resident. This subsequently caused inconsistency in the landlord’s messaging and distress to the resident seeking clarity.
The landlord’s summary position showed no reflection on the relevant qualification expressed by the surveyor’s view that the ground conditions were ‘not ideal’ and that this did ‘not help the tenant’s case’. The landlord adopted the findings without acknowledgement or reflection that the inspection may not have presented a fully representative picture of the circumstances reported as ongoing over years. There is no evidence it reflected on the relevant background evidence of waterlogging/ flooding alongside the inspection caveat.
Of greatest significance to the position adopted by the landlord at this stage, and in common with its overall handling, its principal focus was whether the garden met NHBC requirements and thus could qualify as a build defect. This focus through the lens of what could be claimed by the landlord against a developer on warranty was at the exclusion of other relevant considerations. The landlord did not show consideration for, or engagement with, its obligations to the resident eg the provision of a home that met the decent homes standard. It did not have regard to the risks that could arise from potential hazards by slippery conditions, particularly in view of its awareness of the household make-up and vulnerabilities.
Finally, there was no recognition or empathy displayed by the landlord’s response. This is of concern considering that the resident had been awaiting a resolution to the matter since 2019 and the updated position left him without a remedy to an issue impacting his enjoyment of the family home. The deficiencies in the landlord’s response as noted above would have caused distress to the resident whose experience and prior reports were not reflected in its content or tone. This put the resident to further time and trouble relaying back to the landlord his concerns and the impact to his family in an attempt to have his voice heard.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence swiftly on 25 January 2022 and appropriately referred his concerns for review by the attending surveyor. However, its interim response showed little empathy to the distress or personal impact that the resident had brought to the landlord’s attention in his further representations.
The landlord’s further response to the resident of 2 February 2022 adopted advice from its surveyor. The landlord maintained a position that the garden did not amount to a defect, as the conditions were not ‘severe’ and did not meet the NHBC conditions to qualify it for a claim. While it was reasonable for the landlord to lean on and give weight to an expert view, it failed again to have regard to wider considerations relevant to inform its position ie whether it owed obligation/s to the resident and whether the conditions posed safety risks.
The landlord copied the surveyor’s comments directly into its response. Although this provided transparency for the resident, it did not support the provision of an empathetic tone and customer friendly communication. The surveyor’s opinion was naturally and reasonably written in a technical manner, intended for the landlord directly.
The landlord’s response demonstrated no focus or consideration for the personal impact to the resident’s household. Its concentration upon the conditions for its own liability claim at the expense of its obligations to the resident and the expressed impact was unreasonable.
The resident made a further effort on 7 February 2022 to raise the impact of the garden conditions and reported a protruding manhole cover. The landlord’s communications between 7 February and 8 March 2022 were limited and subject to failed promises. This placed the resident at time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates after its own deadlines passed. Despite the resident supplying updated evidence as requested, there is no record the landlord reviewed his updated evidence or engaged reasonably with his concerns. The landlord’s repeat and unreasonable failure to adhere to promised contact triggered the submission of the resident’s complaint on 8 March 2022.
The landlord’s first stage complaint investigation showed little regard to its background awareness of the difficulties, the resident’s account and the evidence he supplied consistent with his description of the garden outside of frozen conditions. Its internal services did not demonstrate a willingness to consider the resident’s experience, instead reviewing the matter solely on the basis of new build defect liability.
Accordingly, its stage 1 response maintained a position about the garden’s compliance with NHBC requirements and gathering water. It failed to consider or show focus upon other relevant considerations. It repeated its prior handling failure to address its mind as to the obligations it may have owed to the resident as a tenant eg decent home standards or risk management. The response also failed to engage with the resident’s submissions concerning the history of the landlord’s handling or the inspection conditions. There was no recognition or empathy present in the response of the impact reported by the resident.
The impact of this tone and the failure to engage directly with his representations is noted within the resident’s escalation request of 25 March 2022. He describes feeling ‘fobbed off’. The landlord’s stage 1 response caused distress to the resident and lead to his incurring time and trouble making further submissions to seek response to his direct concerns.
The resident carefully outlined his experience further when making representation to the landlord on 27 June 2022 at the customer panel meeting. He had supplied further photographs showing water logged earth. He added details concerning the personal impact to his household including damage to their belongings, raised concern of the slip hazard presented by the conditions and the adverse impact to his mental health as a person living with depression.
The landlord’s customer panel engaged further with the matters raised by the resident. It accepted that the only real ‘remedy’ for the garden issues being experienced were to dig out and add more topsoil. It showed listening of the resident’s concerns, a willingness to engage with his circumstances and empathy when he displayed distress at his experience at home. Its subsequently issued response provided an improved recognition of his prior reports. However it did not acknowledge or address that its more recent position diverted from its 2019 apparent willingness to consider a suspected defect or how it had communicated an updated adverse position.
The landlord said that from the evidence considered, the conditions were within tolerance. While the landlord did leave open the opportunity for further evidence to be supplied, it is unclear what further evidence the resident could have provided. The photographs supplied up to stage of the panel meeting across all of his prior reports reasonably displayed waterlogged and very boggy ground conditions that would significantly impede use of the garden. The landlord’s own records had noted previous flooding, outside of the inspection in frozen conditions. The evidence supplied by the resident was consistent with his account. The prior photographs and background knowledge were relevant matters for the panel and should reasonably have factored into their assessment of the conditions.
The response failed to demonstrate reasonable engagement with the reported impact to the resident’s mental health. The landlord failed to engage with the duty/ies it may have owed to the resident as to the impact he reported to his mental health condition or the potential risks presenting from his low vision. This was a failure by the landlord to reasonably engage with and demonstrate regard for its duties in the Equality Act 2010 and consider the applicability of its own reasonable adjustments policy.
The landlord’s response appropriately responded to the resident’s repeat report of the manhole cover and promised remedial action to manage the trip hazard. However, the landlord did not self-reflect to identify that this was first raised by the resident as a consequence of the bogging conditions 4 months earlier. It failed to recognise that this was a matter it had failed to respond to within a reasonable timeframe. It therefore offered no redress to the resident for its earlier failure.
The remedial work promised by the landlord’s final response was significantly and unreasonably delayed, causing further detriment to the resident who repeatedly chased progress. Even though the landlord acknowledged its delay at the time of completion and apologised, it failed to offer any other remedial action at this relevant time to recognise the additional detriment it had caused. An apology alone was insufficient to acknowledge its delay of 6 months and the resident being put to further time and trouble. The landlord’s delay and subsequent failure to redress the same in January 2023 exacerbated the impact of its overall failings on the resident.
It is noted that the landlord completed additional drainage to the garden nearly 14 months after the resident’s complaint. It committed to the more extensive remedial solution referred to by its surveyor 2 years later. This followed the further persistence of the resident to draw attention to the ongoing impact from his garden conditions and referral to this Service.
This Service has considered the landlord’s correspondence of 26 March 2024. The landlord’s further review identified it provided unclear advice, delayed promised works, poorly communicated those works and failed to show sufficient empathy or regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities. This belated reflection correctly identified a number of the failings considered by this Service for which the landlord offered compensation . Whilst this is welcome, it is evidence of the landlord’s failings in adequately assessing the resident’s complaint during its internal complaints process. This is addressed further below.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the garden amounted to maladministration.
Within the period of investigation, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no reasonable attempt to put things right, causing the resident distress, inconvenience and particular time and trouble. Its subsequent failure to action the remedial work promised by its response exacerbated the detriment to the resident. Considering the nature of failings assessed above and the impact to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay further compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord recorded the resident on 2 February 2022 being ‘not happy’ with its feedback from earlier attempts to resolve his concerns. This expression of dissatisfaction was reasonably a complaint that the landlord failed to action in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord’s complaint response at stage one was delayed outside of its 10 working day timescale. While the delay was short (3 days), it failed to acknowledge or offer any form of remedy eg an apology for failing to meet its policy timescale. This was contrary to its putting things right guidance.
At stage 2 of the complaint process, the landlord informed the resident it would issue the panel decision to him by 6 July 2022. It failed to make contact when the letter was delayed despite its customer relations procedure requirement to keep customers updated. This caused the resident to chase an update. The delay was minimal of 2 days, however, the landlord’s failure caused him unnecessary further trouble and disappointment.
The landlord’s customer panel continued exploring relevant matters after the resident had left the meeting with the landlord’s appointed ‘expert’. While it was reasonable that the landlord’s panel members deliberated privately outside of the full meeting, the input granted to the attending ‘expert’ placed at risk the fairness of its decision-making. The resident was not given opportunity to access the further opinion or information that was outlined to the panel. He was prevented full knowledge of the matters being considered as relevant by the panel, the chance to provide a position in response or ask questions on this further information. While the purpose of the panel forum had been to allow the resident full input and transparency to the landlord’s decision-making at stage 2, the provision of further evidence after his exit was unreasonable.
As noted above, the remedial action promised to the garden by the landlord’s final response was not actioned for over 6 months. The landlord failed to appropriately log or monitor its promised action to completion in line with the Code. It failed to provide any regular updates to the resident. The landlord’s internal communications show that despite the landlord promising action at the meeting, it failed to raise/ log the job needed until chased by the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses offered no acknowledgement of any failing. While the landlord’s complaint process and the Code required it to consider any learning evident from review of the complaint, it failed to identify the multiple prior failings detailed in the above assessment.
Only following the persistent efforts of the resident over subsequent years did the landlord revisit its position. It expressly acknowledged that it did so as a result of the intervention of this Service. This very belated review and more thorough assessment of its handling should reasonably have taken place at the time of the resident’s complaint. In line with the Code, it was required to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Engagement with failings multiple years after the resident’s complaint was contrary to the consistent reflection required by the Code. The landlord’s failure to provide timely reflection and transparency to the resident added to his distress, inconvenience and the particular trouble to which he was put advancing his concerns.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was subject to insufficient review of relevant records or its obligations. This lead to inconsistency in its expressed position and placed unnecessary burden on the resident to raise matters. The landlord failed on multiple occasions to demonstrate empathy or regard to the personal impact reported. The landlord’s significant delay actioning its promised remedial work exacerbated the detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling was subject to a number of failings. It failed to treat the resident’s earlier expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint in line with its policy and the Code. Its complaint responses were issued outside of its policy timescale. While the delay was short, it failed to engage appropriately with the resident to make him aware in advance or apologise, causing him further detriment. The panel hearing received further evidence after the resident’s exit. It failed to record and monitor the action it promised in its final response. Its belated offer years after the resident’s complaint and only after the intervention of the Service represented a failure to appropriately review its handling at the relevant time in line with the Code.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report.

In order to demonstrate compliance with the order in this case the apology should comply with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance and must:

Be personal and specific to the resident and case.
Express empathy.
Acknowledge the failures in the case and the impact on the resident.
Take responsibility for the failings identified and express sincere regret.

Pay the resident £225 compensation. It is comprised of:
1. £125 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the garden.
2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Pay the sum of £500 previously offered in its correspondence of 26 March 2024 unless this has already been paid to him.