GreenSquareAccord Limited (202123498)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123498

GreenSquareAccord Limited

20 November 2022

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 response to the resident’s concerns that their garden was unsafe and unusable, and their request for the garden to be paved.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 17 August 2009 and the property is a four-bedroom house.
3. On 4 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report that his garden was broken up, very soggy, muddy, patchy and when it rained big puddles appeared everywhere. The resident said since he moved in the garden had deteriorated, he had pointed out the state of the garden to numerous inspectors, the latest being on November 2021, and something needed to be done about it. The landlord informed the resident that a surveyor would visit the resident’s property on 6 January 2022 to inspect the garden.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 8 January 2022 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports about his garden and further complained about the two missed appointments, stating that the surveyor booked for 6 January 2022 did not attend and that after chasing them, the surveyor agreed to attend on 7 January 2022, but again they neither attended or called.
5. The landlord issued its initial formal response on 10 May 2022. The landlord noted that the resident had previously reported issues with the back garden in 2011 and 2013. However, no further calls had been made regarding this, and no further action taken, until more recently. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s recollection of the arrangements made regarding the 7 January 2022 differed to that of the surveyor, and apologised for the confusion. The landlord noted that the resident had forwarded a photo of his garden, which meant the surveyor no longer needed to attend and advised that its contractor would be in contact to arrange an appointment directly with him.
6. The resident escalated his complaint, requesting compensation for the missed appointments and the loss of use of his garden or, alternatively, for the landlord to pave the affected area.
7. The landlord issued a final response on 24 May 2022, where it apologised for the poor communication with regard to the surveyor’s visits. The landlord explained that its compensation policy did not cover any loss of earnings due to missed appointments but offered £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture due to the inconvenience the resident experienced and by way of apology for the lack of firm communication around the appointments. The landlord also apologised for the mistake in its earlier letter, when it had said that the resident had forwarded the photo of his garden.
8. The landlord went on to explain that, following the inspection carried out by its contractors on 19 May 2022, it was established that, whilst the garden was quite damp and wet in some places, it would not require any drainage work and therefore the resident’s request for compensation due to not being able to use the garden was not something it could offer. The landlord further informed the resident that paving the area had been suggested as a solution, however, this was not work which it would carry out and should the resident wish to do so himself he could request permission from it to do so.
9. The resident referred his case to this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to carry out repairs to his garden, and to compensate for the loss of use of their garden or, alternatively, for it to pave the affected area.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The Ombudsman notes that the resident complained to the landlord that the issue with his garden had been going on since 2009. It must be noted according to paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not considers complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

Assessment

11. The resident reported having issues with his garden on 4 January 2022, that his garden had had the same issues since he moved in and that the landlord had previously inspected his property. As it had been some time since the last inspection, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the garden to be inspected again and arranged an appointment for its surveyor to attend on 6 January 2022, however this did not happen. The surveyor also missed a further appointment on 7 January 2022.
12. The resident raised a formal complaint on 8 January 2022, however the landlord failed to issue its stage one response until 10 May 2022. This was not a reasonable time for the landlord to take to provide its response to the resident’s complaint given that its complaints policy states that it would do so within 10 working day. Overall it took the landlord 86 working days to provide its response and as such represents a failure by the landlord, especially considering that this service had contacted it on 28 January, 17 March 2022 and 26 April 2022 chasing its response on behalf of the resident. It has also been noted that at no point during the complaints process did the landlord either acknowledge or apologise to the resident for this delay.
13. In its stage one response the landlord addressed the issue of the missed appointment on 7 January 2022, however it failed to explain why the visit on 6 January 2022 did not take place. It is noted that recollections differ as to the reason for the missed appointments and it is not clear from the evidence why the inspection did not take place on either 6 or 7 January 2022. Whilst such mistakes can occasionally occur, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to attempt to put things right and in this case the landlord apologies to the resident and offered £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
14. It is unclear why the landlord took so long to respond to the resident’s complaint nor why it took so long for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to inspect the garden. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep clear records of its communication with residents however, in this case it failed to do so which resulted in unreasonable confusion for the resident.
15. Following on from the missed appointments in January 2022, there was further poor communication between the landlord and its contractors. Having received the photos of the garden, landlord’s surveyor said that they would arrange for its contractor to attend. However, that inspection did not take place until 19 May 2022, the evidence suggesting that this was due to a combination of poor communication between contractors and the landlord’s poor record keeping.
16. It has been noted that such failure ultimately caused delays in carrying out an inspection and resulted in the landlord providing contrasting information in its formal responses.
17. Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord appropriately inspected the resident’s garden and advised, in its final response, that its contractors informed had informed it that no drainage work was necessary. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate, and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. Nevertheless, the landlord acted reasonably by advising the resident that he request permission to pave the garden himself.
18. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the resident’s garden, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors that no repairs, for it was responsible, were needed and saying that the resident could request permission to carry out the paving himself. However, there were unreasonable delays in both its initial complaint response and in it inspecting the resident’s garden, which caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. Whilst the landlord apologised to the resident and offered £50 compensation, this was not proportionate to the detriment to the resident nor to the failings identified by our investigation.
19. As a result a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation, bringing the total payable to £200.This figure being in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and, whilst they had no permanent impact, nevertheless caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that his garden was unsafe and unusable, and his request for the garden to be paved.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

21. That within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to him because of delays in both its initial response to his complaint and in it inspecting his garden. This is inclusive of the £50 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
22. To reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, the landlord is also ordered to carry out a review of its complaint handling and record keeping processes.