The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Connexus Homes Limited (202303965)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303965

Connexus Homes Limited

29 July 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:
    1. The removal of Japanese knotweed at the property.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and she has lived there since March 2020.
  2. In July 2019, during building work carried out at the property before the resident moved in, it was identified that there was Japanese knotweed growing in the back garden.
  3. The landlord employed a specialist contractor to treat the knotweed and treatment started in October 2019. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 4 October 2021 as she said the garden had been neglected and the knotweed had not been treated. She said she was told before moving in that the knotweed would be treated and disposed of within 2 years, but had since been told it will be longer.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to this complaint on 19 October 2021 in which it confirmed that the treatment would take 5 years, followed by 3 years of inspections. It said it chose the contractor, and its recommended treatment plan, as it was the only one that would provide a guarantee. It said that its lettings team had made her aware of the possibility of long-term treatment before she signed the tenancy agreement. It said that it did not think a reduction in rent was required as she was aware before accepting the property of the reduced garden size, however it offered her the use of a garage as a goodwill gesture whilst treatment was ongoing.
  5. It is not clear from the information provided when the resident requested the complaint be escalated, however the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 November 2021. It apologised that it did not give completely clear information at the start of the tenancy. It explained that there is strict regulation around treatment of Japanese knotweed, so the treatment would have to continue as planned.
  6. The landlord said that it could not freeze her rent at the current amount, however it calculated compensation based on future rent increases and offered the resident £1,571. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2021 to say she would accept the compensation on the condition that £150 she was already offered during a telephone call with the landlord was also paid. The landlord processed the payment of £1,721.
  7. The resident raised another complaint on 10 May 2022, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 20 May, in which it said that its grounds maintenance team would visit and cut down weeds around the knotweed. It said it would also arrange for these to be cut back again following the knotweed treatment in the Autumn.
  8. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 6 June 2022. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 August, in which it referred her back to its original stage 2 response and said that the treatment plan was being followed. It said that knotweed is controlled waste, so must be left in place when strimmed and not transported.
  9. The resident raised a third complaint on 18 January 2023. She said that she had caper spurge growing in the garden which she believed to be invasive and poisonous.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 February 2023, in which it said the treatment was being carried out in line with the schedule. It said that the resident had asked for an independent survey to confirm the existence of knotweed, however it had reviewed the original survey and the findings were accurate and the treatment plan appropriate.
  11. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 8 February 2023. She said that guidelines had changed and the 7 metre exclusion zone was unnecessary and asked for the fence to be moved to a 3 meter exclusion zone to give her more garden space. She also said that the timescale for treatment remained excessive and she should be able to use her garden within the next 12 months.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 March 2023. It said that it had spoken to its contractor about potentially moving the fence and was waiting to hear back. It said it had already explained the treatment timescale and provided compensation to recognise the reduced garden space during this time. It confirmed that the contractors had visited as scheduled in October 2022 and was awaiting confirmation from them of what took place. It said it would be visiting in the next month or 2 to ensure weeds were treated, including the cape spurge.
  13. The landlord sent the resident a follow up letter on 24 March 2023, in which it confirmed it would move the fence to give her a slightly larger garden, but the position of this would be agreed by the contractor and their decision would be final. It also said it would lay turf in this area. It confirmed that the visits had all taken place as scheduled, however no treatment was applied in October 2022, as it is a surface treatment, and there was no visible plant to treat. It explained that this did not mean the knotweed had been eradicated, as it can go dormant.
  14. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and contacted this Service on 2 May 2023 to ask us to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint about the Japanese knotweed on 23 November 2021. The resident did not bring her complaints to this Service until 2 May 2023. While this Service normally requires complaints to be raised with us within 12 months, in the instance the landlord’s original complaint response has been brought within our remit so that a more thorough investigation of the overall issue can be completed, including its offer of compensation at this earlier stage.
  2. The resident has recently contacted this Service about weeds growing in the section of garden she is unable to use. Any new issues with weeds would need to be raised with the landlord, as these have grown since the conclusion of the complaint under investigation.

Japanese knotweed

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of a Japanese knotweed survey carried out on 17 July 2019, after knotweed was suspected when building work was being carried out at the property whilst it was void. The resident has questioned the presence of knotweed and asked for a new survey. The survey was carried out by a specialist this and Service has seen no evidence to show that it was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on this report and the surveyor’s advice.
  2. The survey found there was a category 3 infestation, meaning that Japanese knotweed was present within the boundaries of the property, but more than 7 metres from a habitable space. It recommended a herbicide programme which would take a minimum of 3 years, but often longer, and require a minimum of 2 years recording no growth to be completed. It also said a barrier should be put around the plants to prevent contamination and spreading.
  3. The survey included a quote and schedule of treatments with herbicide to be applied annually from autumn 2019 until autumn 2025 followed by 3 annual monitoring visits. The landlord’s records show that prior to the resident raising her first complaint on 4 October 2021, the contractor had carried out visits to treat the knotweed in October 2019, January 2020, September 2020 and September 2021, in line with the schedule.
  4. In its stage 2 response of 23 November 2021, the landlord accepted that it may not have made it as clear as it could have to the resident how long the treatment would last. She was unhappy that it meant a large portion of her garden was not usable, and she was unable to put up a shed for storage.
  5. To recognise the resident’s limited garden whilst treatment was ongoing, the landlord used forecasted rent increases to calculate compensation of £1,571 and gave her use of a garage as a goodwill gesture during the treatment. It also paid her an additional £150 compensation. The resident accepted this compensation at this time, and the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions to resolve the complaint at this time to have been reasonable.
  6. The resident raised the second complaint on 10 May 2022, as she was unhappy with the way the treatment was progressing and the growth of weeds around the knotweed. In its stage 1 response of 20 May the landlord confirmed it would attend to cut down weeds around the knotweed, and ensure that its specialist contractor would do the same during its autumn visit.
  7. In its stage 2 response of 25 August 2022 the landlord reiterated its response to the previous complaint and said that the actions had been carried out in line with the timetable it had provided her for dealing with the knotweed. It explained that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 knotweed is defined as controlled waste, so any strimming had to be left in place whilst treatment is ongoing. It was reasonable for the landlord to act in line with regulations and not remove the waste at that time.
  8. The resident raised the third complaint on 18 January 2023, after she found what she believed to be caper spurge growing. No copy of the resident’s complaint has been provided, however the landlord’s notes say she was concerned this was invasive and poisonous. The landlord’s internal records state that caper spurge is not invasive, and was not growing close to her fence.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 February 2023, in which it said that as per the previous complaint it was continuing with treatment of the knotweed as planned. It said that it had no reason to carry out a new survey of the knotweed and the treatment plan was appropriate.
  10. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident wanted the fence to be moved, but said that it would not be commenting further on the exclusion zone. It noted that the resident had said that she did not think the visit in autumn 2022 took place, but said that it had taken place however due to the heat there had been little growth.
  11. The landlord’s records show that the complaint was escalated on 8 February 2023, however it does not note the resident’s reasons for this request. In its stage 2 response of 8 March, it said that it had spoken to the specialist about moving the fence and was waiting to hear back.
  12. The landlord also said it had asked the contractor whether anything could be done about removing buried rubbish and whether the treatment plan could be revised to allow her full access to her garden sooner. It said that the contractors had visited on 17 October 2022 and had found no visible knotweed. It was waiting for the contractor to confirm whether any treatment had taken place. It said it would update her with these answers by 17 March 2023.
  13. The landlord’s records show that it did not contact the contractor to ask the relevant questions until 13 March 2023, 5 days after it had sent its stage 2 response, despite telling the resident it had already asked these questions. It received a response on 17 March, which said that the treatment allowed for monitoring as the plant can become dormant. There had been no herbicide applied in autumn 2022 as there was no visible plant to treat.
  14. It said that it would be wary of ending treatment early given the level of disturbance when building work was carried out. It suspected that the plant may be dormant and may reappear at its visit in autumn 2023, which the inspection forms show did turn out to be the case. It agreed that the 7 metre exclusion zone was not necessary, and any rubbish that was more than 2 metres from the knotweed could be removed.
  15. The landlord wrote to the resident to update her on 24 March 2023, a week later than it had promised. It said that the fence could be moved, and that it would liaise with the contractor to agree a suitable position within the next 2 weeks and would move the fence and turf by the end of April. It also explained what the contractor had said about the visit in October 2022 and the need to continue the treatment as planned.
  16. The resident chased up the fence move with the landlord on 15 May 2023, and its records show that the move was complete on 26 May, almost 4 weeks later than it had promised in its letter of 24 March.
  17. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the removal of Japanese knotweed. The evidence shows the landlord kept to the schedule of treatment, and in response to her first complaint it provided reasonable compensation her for the long term restriction of her garden, so the landlord acted reasonably in these respects.
  18. However, in relation to the change of the size of the required exclusion zone, the landlord had not contacted the contractor when it sent its stage 2 response, despite saying it had, and then did not move the fence within the timescale it promised.
  19. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to it moving the fence.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  3. The resident raised her first complaint on 4 October 2021. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 October, which was 11 working days after it was raised. This was a day longer than its policy timescale, but this does not represent an unreasonable delay.
  4. No evidence has been provided of when the resident requested the escalation of the complaint. However, as the stage 2 response was only sent 25 working days after stage 1 response, it is not possible for there to have been an unreasonable delay at this stage either. So, the landlord handled the first complaint fairly.
  5. The resident raised the second complaint on 10 May 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 20 May, which was within 10 working days of it being raised, and therefore in line with its complaints policy.
  6. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 6 June 2023. The landlord did not send its stage 2 response until 25 August, 58 working days later, far exceeding its policy timescale of 20 working days. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated during this time, or provided an explanation for the delay. This represented an unreasonable delay in dealing with the complaint.
  7. The resident raised her third complaint on 18 January 2023. As the landlord had already exhausted its internal complaints process, it would have been most appropriate for it to have reiterated the resident’s right to refer the complaint to this Service, however it raised a new complaint.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 January 2023 to acknowledge the complaint. It then sent its stage 1 response on 3 February, 12 working days after it was raised. This was slightly outside its policy timescale, however, as it had acknowledged the complaint in the meantime, this delay was not unreasonable.
  9. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 8 February 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this on 15 February. It sent its stage 2 response on 8 March, which was 20 working days from escalation, so this was sent within its policy timescale.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints. The delay at stage 2 of the second complaint was not reasonable, and the landlord failed to keep the resident updated with the complaint’s progress and any reasons for the delay.
  11. And, whilst the landlord handled the third complaint in line with its policy timescales, it should have directed the resident to this Service rather than deal with the complaint again through its internal complaints process. This led to a delay in the resident bringing her complaint to this Service.
  12. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the removal of Japanese knotweed at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £300 of compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the removal of Japanese knotweed.
    2. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this service within 28 days of this report.