EMH Housing and Regeneration Limited (202108164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108164

EMH Housing and Regeneration Limited

16 September 2021

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 the resident’s reports of a lack of maintenance of the communal grass near his property.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

2. The resident occupies his property under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. To the side of the house is a strip of communal land – a grass verge. It expands to become a wider strip at the point at which it is adjacent to the property. 

 

Summary of Events

 

3. On 15 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord regarding a separate matter and mentioned a further issue he wished to raise and which he stated he had reported previously. It concerned a piece of land next to his property which had become overgrown with weeds but which he understood was intended to be a grassed area.

 

4. The resident stated he had brought the question of maintenance of the area to the landlord’s attention on a number of occasions over a prolonged period, and that it had been “trimmed” three times in seven years. He offered to pay extra rent if the land was added into his garden for him to maintain.

 

5. The landlord emailed the resident in reply, on the same day. It understood that the resident wanted to escalate this matter to stage two of its complaints procedure and confirmed he would hear about a panel hearing from another staff member shortly.

 

6. However, on 17 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident again correcting this by confirming it had recorded a stage one complaint on the issue. 

 

7. On 18 March 2021 the landlord then wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response. It stated that the area had last been cleared at the end of 2020 and that its contractor was going to attend that week to take photographs and that they would visit monthly going forward. The landlord apologised for the fact the resident had had to contact it about the matter.

 

8. The resident replied the same day, reporting that whilst the landlord’s contractor had been to the site that morning and “strimmered some of the weeds”, it had not fully completed the work. He reported that there were so many weeds, there was no grass left. He suggested the area be re-turfed or gravelled or that it be planted with shrubs and the ground covered in bark to suppress future weeds. He repeated his offer to pay more rent if the area could be included in his garden.

 

9. The landlord took the resident’s email as a request to escalate his complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure and emailed him on 20 March 2021 to confirm it had arranged a panel hearing for 12 April 2021.

 

10. On 9 April 2021 the landlord obtained costings from its contractor for an initial clearance of the land together with an annual maintenance cost.

 

11. The panel hearing then took place on 12 April 2021 as planned and the landlord emailed the resident with the outcome on 20 April 2021. It confirmed that the following findings had been made:

 

1. The caretaker had visited the land in December 2020 and there had been further sporadic visits since. On 15 March 2021 the resident reported it remained full of weeds.

 

2. The landlord’s staff member had visited on 9 April 2021 and arranged for grass seed to be sown, ivy to be removed and overgrowth to be cut back. Future maintenance of the area was being arranged.

 

3. The landlord confirmed the area was communal in nature and that it was responsible for maintaining it – (rather than the resident taking it over).

 

4. The landlord accepted there had been delays in setting up a maintenance contract and that the resident had had to report the matter on previous occasions.

 

5. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of compensation of £50 for any inconvenience suffered by the resident.

 

12. On 16 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord again. He reported that despite eight weeks passing since the panel hearing, the land was still overgrown with weeds “to waist height”. He expressed disappointment that nothing had been done and that seeds from the weeds had taken root in his garden. He repeated his offer to look after the area if it was included as part of his property. 

 

13. The landlord’s internal records note it acknowledged this report on 21 June 2021.

 

14. On 6 July 2021 the landlord’s staff member noted they had missed dealing with the issue and instructed its contractor to proceed, both with an immediate attendance and with an ongoing maintenance programme.

 

15. On 7 July 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the area to get it cut back and tidied up, and again on 31 July 2021.

 

16. On 3 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the area had been cut back on these dates and that an ongoing maintenance cycle was now in place. It commented that the resident should not experience any more issues with the area.

 

17. The resident replied on 7 September 202, reporting to the landlord that the area was actually overgrown with weeds again and there was no sign of the fresh grass that he had understood was to be sown. 

 

18. The landlord replied, in writing, that day and confirmed the details of the maintenance arrangements now in place and commencing that month.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

19. The landlord operates a Complaints Policy which sets out its approach to complaints handling. It states that “a complaint will not be considered where more than six months has elapsed between the cause of the complaint, and it being brought to our attention.”

 

20. The policy sets out a four-stage procedure for complaints to progress through. The first stage is an initial investigation by the landlord, with the second stage consisting of a panel hearing. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the policy states they can appeal to a designated person (as stage three) or alternatively, appeal to this service (as stage four).

 

21. The landlord offers “a wide range of remedies” including apologies, putting things right, and compensation.

 

22. The landlord sets out its approach to compensation in its Compensation for Service Failure Policy. This document sets out a banding system for discretionary payments depending upon the severity of the service failing; the length of time involved; and the impact on the resident. The bands are “Lower Band £50 – £250”, “Middle Band £250 – £700”, and “Top Band £700 and above”.

 

Assessment and findings

 

23. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the grass verge to the side of the property. The resident states he has reported the problem a number of times over a prolonged period. However, no evidence has been produced of that contact and, in any event, the complaint which is the subject of this report, was not made until March 2021.

 

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not investigate what might be described as “historic” complaints. This is because as time passes, evidence becomes harder to locate, witness recollections fade and an investigation which is fair to both parties becomes more difficult. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s inclusion of a time limit in its policy was appropriate and reasonable. There is no evidence of the resident formally complaining about the issue during the extended period to which he has referred.

 

25. Accordingly, the landlord took the resident’s contact of 15 March 2021 as both a report of the situation and a complaint about it. The evidence demonstrates it acted appropriately at this point, arranging for the area to be cut back, visiting the site to assess the situation, and then taking the first steps towards putting a maintenance contract in place with its contractor.

 

26. At the panel hearing on 12 April 2021 the landlord admitted there had been delays in sorting the situation out, offered to put things right, and also offered compensation of £50. In the Ombudsman’s view, this represented a reasonable response to the complaint. Whilst the resident might reasonably report finding the situation frustrating, the impact on him was not extensive and the landlord applied a figure from the “Lower Band” from its compensation policy which was appropriate. Accordingly, the landlord’s handling of the report and the resident’s complaint was appropriate and reasonable and represented a fair resolution to the dispute.

 

27. Unfortunately, the evidence demonstrates the landlord failed to follow this up. The conclusion of the maintenance contract was overlooked. The resident had to chase the position again, which he did in mid-June 2021 and again at the beginning of September 2021. His first contact prompted visits on 7 and 31 July 2021 for the verge to be seen to, but then, again, nothing was done until September, when the landlord confirmed the maintenance contract had been finalised. The fact these events were taking place during the summer when it is reasonable to conclude the verge was flourishing, rather than in the winter when it might have been dormant, has been noted and taken into account.

 

28. The landlord has now sorted the maintenance contract out and offered the resident an apology for not previously doing so. As the offer of compensation was made before the resident was put to more inconvenience (in chasing the landlord where it failed to implement its remedy), this Service has considered whether the landlord might reasonably have been expected to offer further compensation.

 

29. In doing so, given that the landlord responded immediately and confirmed that the maintenance programme was in place, the Ombudsman has is satisfied that the landlord’s apology was sufficient. The Ombudsman has also found that the adverse impact during this time was minimal and did not impact the occupation of the property itself. In the Ombudsman’s view the level of compensation remains reasonable despite the further reminders the resident had to offer and finds the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

 

30. For the sake of completeness, the resident has suggested ways in which the landlord should have resolved the issue. He has suggested that as a minimum, it the area ought to be reseeded or the grass re-turfed. He further suggested the area be covered in bark interspersed with shrubs, or better still, included in his garden for him to maintain. As the landlord is responsible for this part of property, it was under no obligation to uphold these suggestions. It is also not for this Service to determine what the best course of action for the landlord would be.

 

Determination (decision)

 

31. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress, in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of maintenance of the communal grass near his property, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Reasons

 

32. The landlord was responsible for maintaining an area of communal land/grass verge adjacent to the resident’s property. It acted appropriately in accepting its service had failed in this regard and made an offer of compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s view, represented reasonable redress despite the fact further action was required on the resident’s part after the amount was calculated. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord confirmed for the resident that it had put in place a plan to manage matters moving forward and while it had to be chased by the resident on a further occasion, it responded promptly, and the inconvenience was minimal.

 

Orders and/or Recommendations

 

Recommendation

 

33. The landlord to re-offer the £50 compensation to the resident if this has not already been paid. This offer demonstrated a recognition on the landlord’s behalf of the impact on the resident of its service failure and the above findings are made based on this offer being made.