Haringey London Borough Council (202214875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214875

Haringey London Borough Council

19 February 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns over the internal communal cleaning.
2. The resident’s request to prune the trees at the property.
3. The resident’s request for the front communal door to be replaced.
4. The repairs to the exterior wall vent.
5. The one-off arrangement to maintain the front garden and to recharge the resident a proportion of the cost for this.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a two-bedroom ground floor flat which was purchased under the right to buy on 18 April 2005.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord is required to acknowledge the complaint within two working days and aim to provide its response within 10 working days, unless it is unable to “speak to the parties involved and is unable to make contact”. At stage two, complaints will be dealt with within 25 working days, again unless the landlord is unable to speak or contact the parties involved.
Following stage two should the resident remain dissatisfied they have the option to request a complaints panel hearing or escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman. Should they choose the complaints panel which is made up of tenants and leaseholders “the final response will be given within 20 working days from the request to escalate”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that “it will consider making a discretionary payment for service failure and poor service”. Examples given of when compensation may be appropriate include:
1. If the resident was affected by delays in the landlord taking action.
2. If the resident has sustained loss or suffering due to a service failure.
3. If the landlord can find during its review “no practical action to provide a full and appropriate remedy of the adverse effect caused by the service failure”.
The landlord’s tree inspection and maintenance policy sets out that “street trees will be inspected on a three to four yearly cycle, dependent on species, location and risk of tree root damage”. It added that reactive works were carried out to manage risks to the public and this included “felling dead trees, removing hazardous branches, clearing obstructions to sightlines and infrastructure and pruning tree roots to prevent trip hazards”.
In terms of pruning, the landlord’s policy explained that this depended on the location of the tree together with the species and that minimal works are carried out “in order to sufficiently manage the tree”. Examples of this were the removal of lower branches to allow vehicles and pedestrian to pass at ease, as well as cutting branches from adjacent buildings. The policy added that it “will try to avoid removing a tree or undertaking unnecessary pruning works where there is no good arboricultural reason”.
The landlord’s tree management policy sets out reasons when pruning will not be undertaken. This includes:
1. Trees are perceived to be too large.
2. There is a perceived risk that subsidence damage may occur in the future.
3. Satellite dish TV reception is interrupted.
4. Sunlight may be blocked from reaching properties or gardens.
5. Seasonal or naturally occurring events happen, e.g. falling leaves, fruit, seeds or berries, bird droppings, pollen allergies.
6. Views are obscured.

Summary of Events

The resident contacted the landlord in early September 2021 to report an issue of bees being able to access the property through the air vents. The landlord’s documents provided to this Service do not show how and by what means the resident had raised this issue with it. A works order was created by the landlord on 9 September 2021 and an operative attended on 8 October 2021. The notes from this visit set out the operative had ordered vent covers which would be fitted once they arrived, however the resident needed to contact pest control to get rid of the bees before any work could be carried out.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 30 September 2021. It has confirmed that it carried out regular inspections of the property several times a year.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2021 to raise a complaint. She explained:
1. She had written to the landlord on 17 August 2020 after it had informed her that it would be charging her for cleaning the internal communal area of the building. She explained she had been cleaning the communal area, as well as the front garden and walk path since she moved into the property 24 years earlier, unaware it was not her responsibility.
2. She had also emailed the landlord on 17 August 2020 concerning two overgrown trees which required pruning. One was at the front of the flat and prevented sunlight getting into the property. The tree at the back was overgrown and it was preventing sunlight getting to her apple tree, meaning the apple tree was not growing properly. Whilst an operative had attended in February 2021 and made enquiries with her about how much she paid to have the front garden maintained, she had not heard back from the landlord.
3. Bees had been coming into the living room via the vent on the outside wall. She stated she had made several calls to the landlord for urgent help and repair. Whilst an operative had attended on 8 October 2021 this had not stopped the bees from coming into the property and both the landlord and the pest control team had been unable to help her. (The landlord has confirmed that it was wasps and not bees which had been observed at the time.)
4. That the front door of the building was in a terrible state, and it had never been replaced since she had moved there. She explained it was difficult to shut and open and there was rotten wood and gaps at the bottom of the door.
The resident sent a follow up letter to the landlord on 29 January 2022. She explained she had not heard back regarding her complaint sent in November 2021.
The landlord repair logs show that it created a work order on 9 February 2022 for the front door. The description for this job noted that a new communal door was required. This job had a scheduled completion date of 23 February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 1 March 2022. It noted that the resident had requested a call from it for the following day. It partially upheld the complaint, as it accepted it had not addressed the resident’s complaint which had been sent to it via the post in a timely manner. It apologised for this. In relation to the resident’s specific concerns, it explained:
1. The cleaning of the internal communal areas had been introduced as policy following on from recent tower block fires. It stated “councils and housing associations are now required by government to inspect and keep all internal communal areas clear, clean, safe, and free of any obstructions. This includes converted street properties”. It added as a landlord it complied with the Housing Regulator’s Consumer Standards which required it to keep communal areas clean and safe. It added that there was no set schedule for how often it would do this, however if the area was well looked after it expected to only visit twice in a year.
2. The front door issue had been raised and a carpenter had been arranged for 23 February 2022. Following this a follow up appointment was scheduled for 2 March 2022 to “renew the communal door”. It added it would check the progress of this repair on 3 March and then update the resident by the following day.
3. In terms of the wasps entering the property via the vent, the resident needed to contact either the landlord’s pest control team or select a pest control contractor of her own choice.
4. The issues of the unkept and overgrown front garden had been referred to the leaseholder department who had set out that the resident, as the leaseholder, was responsible for maintaining the garden as set out in schedule 5(8) of the lease.
5. The resident needed to contact the tree department in terms of the pruning of the two overgrown trees.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 March 2022 stating:
1. That it was apologising for not having called the resident on 2 March 2022, as it had promised to do so.
2. The carpenter had attended on 23 February 2022 but was unable to inspect the door as other operatives were on site. These operatives had informed it that a new door was required. The carpenter had returned on 2 March 2022 and explained after inspecting the door that it only needed realigning, sanding and painting. An appointment had been booked for 22 March 2022 to do this.
3. In terms of the unkept and overgrown front garden this was her responsibility. However, having spoken to the leaseholder and tenancy management team it would, on a one-off basis, deal with the gardening service and split the costs of this with her. If she wanted to do this it asked her to let it know, reiterating this was a “one-off offer”.
The landlord’s internal communication from 1 April 2022 stated that it had spoken to the resident recently who had asked for assistance regarding the pruning of the trees in the front and back garden. In addition, the resident had also complained about the decoration and cleaning of the communal area, stating that it had not been maintained and asked who was responsible for this. The landlord has not been able to confirm when this call with the resident took place.
The landlord’s internal email of 19 April 2022 set out in response to its query from 1 April 2022 (set out above) that the decoration to the property would be major works. In terms of the cleaning, this was undertaken twice a year, as the property was a street conversion.
The landlord undertook an inspection of the property on 27 April 2022. The report noted that the front garden and pathway was not clear of refuse and was blocked. Several pictures showing this were provided with the inspection report.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June 2022 explaining that it had told her it would support her to have her front garden done and share the costs. However nothing had been done, the garden was a mess and she had not been contacted about the matter. She asked for an update on the situation.
The landlord replied to the resident on 8 June 2022 explaining it had referred the matter to its tenancy team and would provide an update by 15 June 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 June 2022 stating she was unhappy with its response at stage one. She requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the procedure. In terms of the specific issues, she explained:
1. The landlord had been unclear about who was responsible for the cleaning of internal communal areas. She wanted clarity on the matter, and if it was not her responsibility, for the landlord who now wanted to charge her for this service, to pay her for the time she had been doing it.
2. The tree had been inspected on 26 April 2022. She had not heard back from the landlord since this time. She added that the trees had not been pruned.
3. The front door had been inspected by the landlord on two occasions. The first work done to the door (which would be to sand and align it) was unacceptable. The resident understood the next job was to paint the door. She said that a painter had attended on 6 May 2022 and confirmed to her that the door was in a “bad state” and needed replacing not painting. He had then left the property, and no one had returned since that time.
4. A booking had been made in relation to the issue of the wasps for 29 April 2022. Whilst a job number had been provided but it was unclear to her whether anyone had attended or whether any work had taken place.
5. She had accepted a one-off offer from the landlord in relation to the gardening service for which it would split the cost with her. The resident added that she would “prefer to do the garden myself”.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 23 June 2022. The report noted that there was refuse and other items blocking access to the building.
The landlord’s internal communication confirmed on 27 June 2022 that it would not let the resident take over the cleaning. It added that the property was cleaned twice a year when it inspected the common parts of the building for repairs and other issues. It also provided extracts from its tree strategy in relation to the circumstances under which it would not prune trees. This included where it was to increase the amount of sunlight reaching the property as well as to alleviate seasonal or naturally occurring problems.
The landlord’s repair logs show a work order was issued on 7 July 2022 in relation to tree felling and chemical stump treatment. This related to the tree at the rear of the property. Under description the work order set out “remove stump regrowth, cut stump lower and treat stump. Cut back to boundary overhanging sycamore growing from next door”.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 14 July 2022. It partially upheld one issue to do with the lack of contact with the resident, over the issue of the trees. With reference to the resident’s complaint, it set out:
1. That it was responsible for cleaning the communal area for the reasons it had previously explained in its stage one response. It added it could not let the resident take over the cleaning and was unable to pay her for it.
2. In terms of the trees, these were found to be in good health and did not need cutting. It added the trees were on a “five-year cycle” and if in the future they did need cutting this would be done in a programme of works with the rest of the street. It apologised for not advising the resident of this following the inspection.
3. An inspection of the door, because of the resident’s complaint, was carried out on 5 May 2022. This had resulted in an agreement that the door needed replacing and a request was made for a carpenter to measure up for a new door. The landlord provided a job number for this work.
4. An operative had attended to the property in relation to repair for the outside vent on 29 April 2022. However, there was no answer and they had left a card. The landlord understood a job had been rearranged for 10 August 2022. It again provided a job number for this matter. It added that the pest control team had confirmed it did not treat wasps at the time of the year the appointment had been booked, since nests died off in winter and new queens did not emerge until mid summer. It provided the resident with the contract number for the pest control team or explained she could select a contractor of her own choice if this matter was still an issue.
5. It would contact the relevant teams to confirm the resident wished to take up the one-off offer for the gardening service where the costs would be split between it and the resident.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The resident contacted this Service on 6 October 2022 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She explained:
1. Whilst the landlord had explained the importance of keeping the internal communal areas clean, it had not addressed the issue of charging her now for the same area she had cleaned for years. The resident added that the landlord was aware it was its responsibility to maintain it but failed to do this. She wanted to be paid for carrying out its duty as well as the landlord to stop charging her for now cleaning the communal area.
2. Whilst the landlord had stated that the trees were in good health and did not require cutting, she had been contacted on 5 October 2022 to explain they would be coming the following day to cut the tree in the rear of the property. She confirmed it had been cut but the tree at the front, which was blocking the sunlight, had not been pruned.
3. Whilst she had been provided a job number for the front door, following the inspection on 5 May 2022 she had yet to be contacted and the door had not been replaced.
4. In terms of the issue with the outside vent no one had attended on 29 April 2022. On the rearranged appointment on 10 August 2022, she had been home and when she checked her mail, she had found a card to say someone had attended and as no one had answered they had left. She had called customer service who had managed to get the operative to reattend. The resident said that the operative asked if the wasps were still getting into the living room. She had responded to say she had replaced her wooden flooring and had not seen any wasps. The resident stated no work was done and the operative had left.
5. Despite the resident having accepted the landlord’s offer for the gardening service for the front garden, no communication had occurred, and no work had been done.
The landlord undertook a further inspection of the property on 17 October 2022. The report noted that front garden and pathway was not clear of any dumped refuse. However, no photos were provided on the area. The report added that cleaning had been undertaken and this lasted 20 minutes.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 October 2022 explaining that, whilst the landlord had agreed to share the cost of clearing the front garden, she had still not been contacted about the matter. The resident stated she urgently needed a gardener to carry out work as the garden was a mess and she did not mind paying the full bill.
The landlord’s internal communications of 31 October 2022 and 2 November 2022 asked about the issues of the garden and the communal front door as it noted, whilst this had been promised to the resident in its stage two response, nothing had happened to date. It received a response back the next day confirming that the Estate Services team only carried out the cleaning and inspection of the communal area. It added it had “visited several times over the past year and a bit to clear the rubbish and bulk in the front garden”. However on the last visit on 17 October 2022 there had been no bulk items in the front garden. It explained that the Parks Service would be able to inspect and provide a quote for the works to cut and maintain the front garden.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 November 2022. It apologised for the resident having to chase it for the garden works. It confirmed it would attend to the hedges by the end of that week and that it would fund those works in full. It added the work had been classified as a priority job.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service following an enquiry in January 2024 that the communal front door had yet to be replaced. It apologised for this and explained that it was “now taking steps for this to be undertaken as soon as we can”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling over the internal communal cleaning.

The resident has explained that she had been residing at the property for a considerable period. During this time, she had regularly been cleaning the internal area outside her property together with that of her neighbour. She added that she was unaware whether this had been her responsibility or if it was the landlord’s. In terms of the responsibilities of either party concerning the property this is set out in the resident’s lease, specifically under the clauses and the schedules. In terms of the clauses, clause four contained the details of the main things which the resident needed to do whilst clause five contained details of the main things the landlord needed to do. Clause six contained details of the other things which the resident needed to do.
The lease does not explicitly specify whether the landlord or resident is responsible for the cleaning of communal areas. However the Ombudsman notes that responsibility for maintenance of the building is with the landlord.
The landlord has set out the reasons why the issue of the communal cleaning came under its responsibility from 2020 onwards. It explained that the approach it was taking was in keeping with the Housing Regulator’s Consumer Standards. This required the landlord as well as all registered providers of social housing to adhere to a set of regulatory standards. One of these set out that registered providers would keep the neighbourhood and communal areas associated with the homes they own clean and safe.
In terms of the resident’s request to either be paid for the cleaning or for her not to be charged by means of the landlord’s service charge, the landlord did consider both options. It contacted the Estates and Tenancy teams with this query. Its response was that the resident could not be retrospectively paid for the cleaning that she had done and that it would be carrying out the cleaning, if required during the inspections. The landlord has provided evidence in terms of photos of the cleaning which it did during the inspections it undertook in 2020 and 2021. Given that some of these inspections lasted around 20 minutes which included the time taken to clean, this demonstrates that the cleaning was kept to a minimum. However nonetheless the landlord did attend to the property at those times and carried out some cleaning.
Overall the landlord acted appropriately. In terms of the internal communal cleaning the resident had disputed who was responsible for this and had questioned whether the landlord could charge her for this “service”. The landlord explained that it had acted in accordance with the requirements of all providers of social housing in taking responsibility for cleaning the communal areas. This had been set out and explained to the resident by it. It was satisfied that it could charge the resident for this matter via the service charge. There was no maladministration or service failure by the landlord. If the resident which to dispute the level or reasonableness of the service charge this would be a matter for the first-tier tribunal and not this Service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to prune the trees.

Whilst the resident has said the trees at both the front and back of the property needed pruning, she explained that the primary reason for this was based on the trees blocking the sunlight to the property. She also mentioned the tree at the back was impacting the growth of her own apple tree, due to the lack of sunlight. The resident stated she had emailed the landlord in August 2020 about the issue. Neither party has been able to provide a copy of this email so this Service is unable to say with reasonable confidence whether the landlord had been made aware of the issue at that time.
However the resident had contacted the landlord in November 2021 about the matter. She then had to chase up the matter several months later. The landlord had initially, in the stage one response, told the resident that she needed to contact the tree management team about the issue. This was not appropriate, as the resident was making a complaint. The landlord should have made enquiries itself and responded rather than inform the resident that she needed to contact a separate area over the matter.
Following the landlord’s stage one response and subsequent on-going contact with the resident, she has stated the inspection of the trees did not take place until April 2022. Following this there appeared no further activity until July 2022 when the landlord issued a work order in relation to the trees at the rear, which was eventually carried out in October 2022. Even though the landlord had issued a work order for the rear tree, it failed to inform the resident of this in the stage two letter, which was dated a week after the work order had been raised. It instead informed the resident that the trees were found to be in good health and that they were subject to a five-year cycle. The landlord’s response in terms of timescales was at odds with its own tree inspection and maintenance policy, which confirmed the cycle was between three and four years.
The landlord also failed to inform the resident at any point that pruning of the trees would not be carried out if there was no arboricultural reason for it or if was preventing sunlight getting to the property. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s failure to do this impacted on the resident, as she was still under the impression that the pruning would be taking place. The delay would have caused distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has not provided this Service with details of why the rear tree was eventually felled in October 2022. Neither has it provided details of whether any further inspections had been carried out on the trees since April 2022. The work order confirmed that in addition to the felling of one tree, a second tree stump had its regrowth removed and treated with herbicide and a third tree in “the adjacent garden had its overhanging foliage pruned back to the boundary”.
Whilst the landlord did eventually address the issue to the rear of the property, the delay in doing so was unreasonable. This was a service failure on the part of the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the request for the front door to be replaced.

The resident had raised the issue of the front door in her complaint in November 2021 and her follow up on 29 January 2022. The landlord has explained that, as the resident’s complaint has been sent in the post and its staff had been home working, this meant it had not been picked up originally and so there had been a delay. Following the resident’s further contact, the landlord acted reasonably by making arrangements to have the door inspected. This was arranged on 9 February 2022 with an appointment date set two weeks later. The landlord explained that, as the carpenter had been unable to inspect the door on that date, a further appointment had been scheduled for the following week at which point it stated the carpenter was of the view the door did not need replacing but could be repaired and repainted.
The landlord was entitled to rely upon the original advice given by its operative in respect of whether repairs were possible to the communal door instead of replacing it. However even though an operative coming out to paint the door in early May 2022 had confirmed that a replacement was required, there was no indication until the landlord’s stage two response issued in July 2022 that it had agreed to do this. This delay was unreasonable as it gave the resident the impression that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
Whilst the landlord did provide, in the stage two response, a job number for this issue, the door had still not been replaced at the time the resident contacted this Service to raise her complaint. The landlord has also confirmed that the door had not been replaced as of January 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the exterior wall vent.

In terms of the exterior wall vent the landlord did create a work order in September 2021 and an operative had attended to the property in October 2021 at which point they had ordered vent covers which would be fitted to the property. However whilst this would address the issue of stopping further access, the landlord’s operative did correctly advise the resident that pest control would be required to treat the wasps.
The resident explained she had difficulty in getting any assistance for this matter. She stated that neither the landlord no pest control wanted to help her. The resident has not provided any further details of when she had called the landlord/pest control about this. However she did refer to the issue in her complaint in November 2021. The landlord explained at stage two that the pest control team confirmed that in any case it would not treat wasps in winter and that it would normally wait until a warmer time of year when a queen would emerge. Whilst this approach was reasonable, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it informed the resident of this at the time. By not doing so it would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
Whilst a job was eventually scheduled for late April 2022 the landlord has explained that an operative called at that time however no one was available. This has been disputed by the resident, who says she had been at home and no one had attended. The landlord’s operative has not provided any contemporaneous evidence that it had attended at that time. As the issue had still been ongoing at the time and the resident was following up with regular contact with the landlord, it is reasonable to assume that she would have called the pest operative had a card been left at that time.
Although the landlord did reschedule an appointment for August 2022, following the stage two response, the resident confirmed that at the time she had not seen any further wasps and that she had refitted her flooring because of the issue. As there was no sight of any wasps the landlord did not carry out any work at that time and instead left.
Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to not take any action if there appeared no issue with the pests at the time, it has not confirmed whether it had fitted the vent cover to the outside vent at the front of the property. Initially it had not fitted this as it was awaiting action on the wasps. Once it had been confirmed that there were no wasps coming into the property via the vent it should have fitted the vent covers. A recommendation has therefore been made regarding this issue which is set out later in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the one-off arrangement to maintain the front garden and to recharge the resident for this.

The landlord had confirmed to the resident that her lease set out that the responsibility for the upkeep of the front garden rested with her. This does not appear to be disputed by the resident. However the landlord did make an offer to the resident on 4 March 2022 as a one-off offer to maintain the garden and split the cost of doing this with her. It explained if she wanted to take up this offer the resident needed to let it know.
The landlord’s records do not show when the resident had accepted the landlord’s one-off offer for the front garden. However it is not in dispute that she had agreed to the offer. The resident had enquired with the landlord over the matter on 6 June 2022 and she was informed that it would refer the issue to the relevant team who would be in touch. Whilst it provided a date for a response, there is no evidence that the landlord had updated the resident by this time. Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint in June 2022, the landlord stated a month later in its stage two response that it would be contacting the relevant team over the matter. Despite this it had still not undertaken the work by November 2022. This was a clear service failure on the part of the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord has explained that it missed the resident’s complaint made in November 2021 as this had been posted to it and its staff had been home-working. This was poor handling by the landlord as it should have had more robust arrangements in place for post handling by this point, which was more than 18 months after the COVID-19 pandemic had originally impacted businesses and organisations in the UK. The landlord’s complaints policy set out that a complaint could be made by any means and it should have ensured that the posted complaint had been logged by it at that time.
After the resident’s chase up letter of 29 January 2022, the landlord did not issue the stage one response until 1 March 2022, outside of the time stated in the complaints policy. There is no evidence it had provided any update to the resident since receiving her complaint. Nor did it apologise for the delay after the complaint had been received at the end of January 2022 to the time of the stage one response.
Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 8 June 2022 the landlord provided its response just outside the time limit set in its complaints policy. The policy set out a response would be received within 25 working days however it did not provide its response until 26 days later. A delay of a day did not significantly affect the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the issue of the internal communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to prune the trees.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the front communal door to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the exterior wall vent.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the one-off arrangement to maintain the front garden and recharge the resident a proportion for this.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The resident’s lease did not set out that the responsibility for the communal cleaning was the landlord’s. It did however set out that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the building. Whilst the landlord did subsequently take over responsibility for the internal communal cleaning, it acted in accordance with guidance issued at the time to all social housing providers. It has also provided evidence that it has carried out cleaning of these areas during its inspections and has therefore charged the resident for this via the service charge. If the resident dispute the level or reasonableness of the service charge this would be a matter she needs to direct to the first-tier tribunal.
Whilst the landlord’s tree management policy sets out the criteria under which pruning would and would not be considered, it failed to inform the resident of this at the earliest opportunity. It also failed to progress her enquiries about the matter instead asking her to contact a different area about the matter. The landlord also provided incorrect information on the matter in its final response communication.
There were delays in the landlord inspecting the communal door and following up on the next steps. Even after the landlord accepted the door needed to be replaced, it did not follow up on this in a timely manner despite several reminders by the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately in directing the resident to resolve the issue of the wasps before it could add an extra vent cover. Given the time of the year that the issue was first raised, the pest control team had stated it would not treat the issue at the time and would wait till summer. Upon attending the landlord’s operative had been told there was no further sighting of the wasps, so it did not take any action..
The landlord did not follow up after the resident accepted its offer with regards to the maintenance of the front garden. This was despite several chasers sent by the resident. Whilst it has stated that the front garden work was undertaken, although it did not charge the resident for this, the resident has disputed this.
There was a delay from the landlord at stage one of the complaints process. The landlord did not make an apology in the stage one response for the delay.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £450. This is comprised of:
  1. £50 for its failure to deal with the issue of the pruning of trees in a prompt manner.
  2. £250 for its failure to deal with the replacing of the front communal door.
  3. £100 for its failure to not follow up with the resident in a timely manner on its offer to maintain the front garden as a one off and to split the costs of this with the resident.
  4. £50 for the failure in its complaints handling.
3. Make arrangements, if it has not already done so, to put into place a work order to replace the front communal door.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to inspect the outer wall vents and attach the vent covers if it has not already done so.
The landlord should contact the resident to ascertain if she still has any concerns concerning the front garden work having been undertaken by the landlord on a one-off basis.