Calico Homes Limited (202212335)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212335

Calico Homes Limited

25 January 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of, and communication about resident’s reports of substandard works to his garden.
   2. The resident’s reports of discrimination.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroomed house. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. From the information provided by the landlord the resident’s property is situated towards the bottom of a hill. During seasonal weather, pooling of water and drainage issues arose.
4. The resident reported the issues to his front and back garden in 2019. Works to the front garden commenced on 3 December 2020, and works to the rear garden in March 2021.
5. The resident remained unhappy with the works and notified the landlord. A visit was carried out by the landlord on 19 August 2021. The resident raised concerns that the drainage was still a problem, and he was unhappy with the quality of the lawn. The landlord confirmed it would consider treatments for the patches of lawn the resident was unhappy with. It confirmed that it would not remove and relay the lawn. The landlord was made aware that the resident had installed his own drain and was reminded that he should not complete any works to the garden while the issues remained outstanding.
6. As a resolution, the landlord wrote to the resident on 26 November 2021. It confirmed that it would pay for additional materials for the resident in addition to reimbursing him with £162.00 for materials he purchased. It offered £100 as a goodwill gesture for the upset and inconvenience the matter had caused.
7. The landlord confirmed that works to the garden had been signed off in March 2022.
8. A few months later, in June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that despite assurances that he would have edging installed, it had not been completed. He confirmed that he had fitted his own temporary, rubber edging. The following month the resident advised that he had weeds coming through his concrete slabs and was dissatisfied with this.
9. A manager attended the resident’s property on 2 August 2022 to discuss the works. It was found that garden works had been completed to a good standard, and it was reasonable to expect some weed growth. The manager left the address after reporting that the resident became abusive and started shouting.
10. The resident was invited to attend the landlord’s offices on 4 August 2022 in connection with the reports. The resident provided the landlord with CCTV to review the incident. The landlord stated that the resident’s behaviour had been a “pattern of incidents” which had caused contractors and officers to have to leave his address after being abused or intimidated. The resident denied calling the manager names but confirmed approaching him. A letter was sent to the resident on 16 August 2022 in relation to unacceptable behaviour.
11. The resident submitted a complaint on 18 August 2022. He said that the works were “substandard”, the landlord was taking the manager’s word over his in relation to the events on 2 August 2022, and he felt he was being victimised because he was challenging the standard of works to his garden. He stated he was lied to in relation to signing off the works. In a further telephone conversation on 24 August 2022, the resident asked why the CCTV footage had been removed from his SD card.
12. The landlord issued a stage one response on 30 August 2022. It confirmed:
    1. The works had been carried out to the agreed specifications and signed off by the contractor and its asset team.
    2. It was sorry that the resident felt victimised because of what he thought was inferior workmanship. It was reasonable after time to have small weeds growing on a paved area.
    3. It had not deleted any CCTV footage so was unclear why it was no longer on the SD card. It was happy to upload a copy for the resident.
13. The resident was dissatisfied with the response, specifically that the weed suppressant was installed incorrectly; two of the flag stones needed to be turned over before they could be cemented and the black edging was not installed.
14. The landlord issued a stage two response on 22 September 2022 and said that:
    1. The methodology used to install the weed suppressant was appropriate.
    2. It apologised if the resident had to turn the flagstones over, before cementing them in place.
    3. It had advised in March 2022 that it was unable to obtain black edging and agreed to provide green edging. The resident had chosen to install a rubber edging instead. However, as a gesture of goodwill, it would purchase green edging, should the resident wish.
    4. The extensive grounds maintenance and landscaping works was significantly above its usual service offer.
    5. It was satisfied that the resident was informed by a former employee that he would sign off the works, in conjunction with the contractor. The sign off was not agreed by both parties which it believed had contributed to the situation and disagreement of opinion regarding workmanship. It offered compensation of £50 as a gesture of goodwill, in relation to the landlord stating the resident could sign off works.
    6. It was sorry that the resident felt victimised and sympathised with his frustrations, however, it had a duty to address his behaviour when he acted in a way that was unacceptable. It had found no evidence that staff had victimised or discriminated the resident.
    7. There was no evidence that a member of staff was aggressive or verbally abusive and based its findings on viewing of CCTV footage, interactions with other staff members and colleagues, as well as historical interactions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. The background of the investigation has included a summary of events from 2019 up until the landlord’s stage two response in September 2022. It is important to note that the assessment is primarily focused on events from June 2022, at which time the resident had raised new concerns about the standard of workmanship and later about victimisation. The earlier events give context to the timeline of events, and previous actions taken by the landlord.
16. The Service is unable to make a legal finding, in relation to the residents’ concerns that he was discriminated against by his landlord. This would be a matter for the courts to determine. The Ombudsman can consider the reasonableness of the actions taken by the landlord, in response to his concerns.

Assessment

17. The Service understands that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the flooding in his garden and recognises the frustration this has caused him during this time.
18. The tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 confirms that the landlord has limited obligations in relation to garden works. The landlord confirmed that it would only usually carry out garden works when the drainage was affecting the property. However, the landlord considered the impact of the issue on the resident, and carried out works in 2021, over and above what it was obligated to do. This demonstrates a willingness as well as a proactive approach to resolving the issue for the resident.
19. It is evident that the landlord and the resident had a difference of opinion with regards to the quality of the works. While the standard was not necessarily in line with the resident’s expectations, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the findings of its experts/technical specialists that the standard of works was “good.”
20. The landlord later confirmed in March 2022 that it was unable to source black edging that had previously been agreed and offered an alternative to the resident. While it is understandable that this caused some frustration to the resident, it was a reasonable response in the circumstances. The landlord later confirmed in its stage two response that the offer remained open to the resident.
21. The communication in relation to the sign-off process from the landlord was evidently poor. The landlord confirmed at stage two that the resident had previously been told that he would sign off the works, in conjunction with the contractor, which created an expectation for the resident, which was not met, and was poorly managed by the landlord. It is understandable that this exacerbated the situation for the resident and eroded his trust in the landlord.
22. The landlord recognised that because of its handling of the matter, it may have contributed to the breakdown in the relationship. It appropriately offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture for any upset and confusion this had caused.
23. The Service finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress in the circumstances, particularly given that there has been no significant failing on the landlord’s part to meet its obligations for the garden.
24. The Service has noted that on occasions, the landlord’s communication with the resident was not always as responsive as it should have been, which meant the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the matter. Examples of this include the landlord failing to attend an agreed appointment on 29 July 2022, which inconvenienced the resident in having to reschedule. The resident requested call backs on 1, 2, and 5 September 2022, in which the landlord recorded that the resident was “fed up with chasing.”
25. Although this impacted the resident at the time, it did not have a significant impact overall. Nonetheless, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the training needs of its staff in relation to providing timely communication, in line with its service standards.

Reports of discrimination

26. The resident explained that he felt victimised by the landlord because he challenged the quality of the workmanship. Furthermore, he felt that the landlord had taken the OSM’s word over his in relation to the visit on 2 August 2022.
27. The landlord would be expected to conduct a fair investigation and relay its findings to the resident. In this case, the landlord met with the resident to obtain his version of events in a meeting on 4 August 2022, and later during a telephone conversation on 18 August 2022. Furthermore, the landlord reviewed independent reports, and viewed the CCTV footage provided by the resident. The landlord advised accordingly that after investigating the matter, it had no evidence that the resident was being victimised, but the resident’s behaviour towards staff and contractors was unacceptable.
28. The landlord has a duty of care to its staff and contractors to investigate any reports of unreasonable behaviour by its residents and address challenging behaviour. Appropriately, the landlord wrote the resident and reiterated that if he was dissatisfied with works, to address this via appropriate complaint channels. The landlord’s informal approach was reasonable, providing the resident with an opportunity to modify his behaviour before the landlord considered any formal action.
29. The landlord’s position that the resident was not being victimised or discriminated against because he challenged the quality of the work is supported by the Ombudsman’s assessment of the substantive complaint.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to:
    1. The landlord’s handling of, and communication about resident’s reports of substandard works to his garden.
    2. The resident’s reports of discrimination

Recommendations

31. The landlord should review and or complete refresher training, to ensure timely responses to residents, in line with its service standards.
32. The landlord should re-offer to purchase the green edging for the resident.