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

Curo Places Limited (202220980)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220980

Curo Places Limited

23 October 2023


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 resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden.
    2. complaints handling.

Scope of the investigation

2.     It should be noted that all the evidence provided by both parties has been considered. As such, whilst this report may reference some historical events for the purposes of context, the scope of this investigation will be limited to consideration of the landlord’s handling of the reports about the resident’s garden from 28 October 2022, onwards.

3.     The Ombudsman understands that the resident had previously reported concerns over the safety of her garden prior to October 2022. The landlord recorded a complaint made by the resident in 2015, about the safety of her garden. The complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process and the resident continued to raise concerns. In 2017, the landlord recorded an Anti-Social Behaviour case in relation to the resident’s maintenance of her garden. This case was open and ongoing for 3 years. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint in 2022.

 

Background

  1. The resident lives in a three-bedroom semi-detached house, under an assured shorthold tenancy agreement that began on 16 December 2013. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the resident’s home to a reasonable state of repair, including fencing and gates that it has provided. The resident is responsible for maintaining non boundary fencing, keeping the garden tidy and free from rubbish, maintaining the boundary hedges, and the cutting the lawns.
  3. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its policy states that it will not consider complaints in relation to issues that happened more than 6 months ago unless the issue is still ongoing.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy defines responsive repairs as repairs that are required to keep the exterior and interior of its homes in good condition, and to keep the property safe.

Summary of events

  1. During 2014, the resident had contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the safety of her garden. She was concerned that there were aspects of the garden that posed a risk to her son, and that he was unable to use the garden to play in safely. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to suggest the landlord took any action following the resident’s contact in 2014.
  2. On the 24 April 2015, a letter from a Child Occupational Therapist (COT) was sent to the landlord in support of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the garden. The COT had made recommendations due to the resident’s child having learning difficulties, and needing a safe and secure garden to play in. They said that there appeared to be an infilled pond that made the surface unstable and unlevel. The COT also recommended that it would greatly help with the resident’s child’s needs if the landlord:
    1. cleared the garden.
    2. removed the trees.
    3. installed new fencing.
  3. The landlord recorded a stage 1 complaint in May 2015, following a further contact from the resident that stated the landlord had not taken any action in resolving the resident’s and COT’s concerns. In its response it agreed to install partial fencing to the right-hand side of the property and said that while the resident had not maintained the garden, once she had arranged for it to be cleared it would inspect the pond and fill in or replace if necessary. It said that the trees had previously been cut back and did not present a risk. The landlord recorded having completed the required works in August 2015.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied, and the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process in August 2015. It provided its final response in early September 2015, confirming all the required works had been completed to its satisfaction, and it had “gone above and beyond” its normal service and felt the garden had been left in a safe and sound condition.
  5. Between February 2017 – November 2020, the landlord had opened an Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) case relating to the resident, following complaints having been received about the resident storing rubbish in her garden that was attracting rodents. The landlord worked with the resident during this time to enable her to bring the garden up to the standard it expected, offering support and help to do this. During this time, the resident continued to raise concerns to the landlord about the safety of her garden.
  6. The resident advised the landlord in September 2020, that she had removed the trees and bushes, and had arranged for someone to lay paving in both the front and back garden. The landlord confirmed a lot of progress to improve the garden had been made and closed the ASB case in November 2020.
  7. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 28 October 2022, advising that it had not completed the works recommended by the COT in 2015, and it recorded a stage 1 complaint under its complaints process the same day.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2022. It said that it had not found any service failure as a result of its investigation, and it was not upholding the resident’s complaint. It stated its reasons to be:
    1. Its internal occupational therapy process did not cover the garden works that had been requested. As a result, the landlord would not be carrying out the works.
    2. Under its complaints policy, it would not consider complaints about things that happened more than 2 years ago.
  9. The resident advised the landlord of her remained dissatisfaction on 31 October 2022, and the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on the same day.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 18 November 2022. Its response said that it had not found any service failure following its investigation and that it had:
    1. carried out works to erect a fence and filled in the pond, it had also cleared the garden and it was brought up to a good standard. The trees were not deemed to have been a hazard and were not trimmed.
    2. recorded a new complaint on 20 September 2020, regarding outstanding works to the garden following the COT referral. The landlord had reviewed the notes and said that all works had been carried out and the garden was left to a good standard.
    3. opened a support case for the resident following the complaint to help clear the garden and offered to provide a skip at the time, but the resident advised it was no longer needed.
    4. found no service failure in the carrying out the works advised by the COT.
    5. completed a full investigation, although its complaints policy states it will not consider complaints from 2 years ago.
  11. The resident brought her complaint to this Service in December 2022. She advised that the works recommended had either not been completed or not completed to a satisfactory standard, and that she had removed the trees at her own expense.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the garden

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside of the resident’s home to a reasonable state of repair, including fencing that it has provided. The resident is responsible for maintaining the boundary hedges and non-boundary fencing. A resident can ask the landlord to make reasonable adjustments to their property to help with a disability, under the Equality Act 2010; however, the landlord does not have to do anything that would involve removing or altering a physical feature.
  2. In the landlord’s communications to the resident in November 2022, it confirmed that following the letter from the COT in 2015, it had replaced fencing, infilled the pond and cleared the garden. It had also inspected the trees but found them not to be a hazard. From the evidence seen by this Service the landlord acted appropriately and took action to carry out the recommended works suggested in the letter sent by the COT.
  3. The resident continued to raise concerns to the landlord about the safety of her garden, while the landlord had an open ASB case due to the resident’s maintenance of her garden. Under the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for maintaining and keeping the garden tidy and free from rubbish. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to suggest the landlord carried out any further works to the resident’s garden following her further concerns.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint in 2022, due to the time passed since the resident’s complaint in 2015, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a further inspection as part of its complaint investigation. There has been no evidence seen to suggest the landlord considered doing this. It would have been best practice for the landlord to have carried out a further inspection of the garden, to ensure it remained satisfied that it had met with its responsibilities. It may have also helped identify any areas of repair that had not been considered previously and given opportunity for a discussion to be had with the resident about its repair and garden maintenance responsibilities.
  5. The resident advised this Service that she had removed trees at a cost to herself. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to suggest that the resident had discussed removing the trees with the landlord prior to their removal. Whilst the tenancy agreement does advise that the resident is responsible for maintaining bushes, it does not reference the maintenance of trees.  The landlord had previously advised the resident that it did not consider the trees a hazard. It would be reasonable to expect the resident to approach the landlord to discuss the removal of trees and agree any next steps, before acting. As it is not evident that the landlord agreed to the removal of the trees, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to reimburse for the costs incurred.
  6. From the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord carried out works to the resident’s garden following the COT letter in 2015. This Service has found that the landlord took the appropriate action and therefore has made a finding of no maladministration of its handling of the condition of the resident’s garden.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process and its complaints policy states that it will not consider complaints in relation to issues that happened more than 6 months ago unless the issue is still ongoing. It will try to resolve complaints quickly at stage 1 of its complaints process and to the satisfaction of the resident.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it advised it had not upheld the resident’s complaint. It said that under its complaints policy it would not consider anything that happened more than 2 years prior to the complaint. It is fair and reasonable for the landlord to have a timescale for residents to make complaints to them.
  3. The landlord accepting the resident’s complaint should prompted a thorough investigation and provided a full response at stage 1 of its complaints process. It should have provided clear details of its investigation findings and confirmed any actions that it had taken, to resolve the resident’s complaint. From the response that it provided it could have been seen to suggest that the resident’s complaint had not been accepted; however, it also made the resident aware that she could progress her complaint to stage 2. Its response showed that it did not try to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity, nor did it show a willingness to do so.
  4. It was evident from the landlord’s stage 2 response that it had then carried out a more detailed investigation. It was clear in providing the actions that it had taken previously to try to resolve the resident’s complaint. However, it did not acknowledge its inadequate response at stage 1.
  5. In summary the landlord did not try to resolve the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process, and it did not provide a full and thorough response to the resident’s complaint. It did provide a more detailed response at the second stage of its process. As a result, this Service has found service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord carried out works to the resident’s garden following the COT request.
  2. The landlord did not follow its complaints process at stage 1.

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for its complaint handling at stage 1 of its complaints process.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident directly £50 compensation for the service failure identified in this report for its complaint handling.
  3. The landlord must comply with these orders and provide evidence to this Service of its compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider carrying out a further inspection of the resident’s garden to ensure there are no areas of concern, as well as managing the resident’s expectations regarding maintenance responsibilities.