Havering Council (202207452)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207452

Havering Council

7 March 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 complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its grounds maintenance with regards to weeds.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident has stated that he has vulnerabilities which have been impacted by the type of weed killer used by the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. The landlord carries out yearly herbicide treatments to the land surrounding the resident’s property, as part of its ground’s maintenance.
3. On 1 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise his concerns about the glyphosate weed killer which was being used by the landlord’s grounds maintenance staff. The resident stated that he believed that glyphosate was poisonous to humans and animals, and was also linked to causing cancer. In addition, he added that glyphosate had been banned by other councils, and therefore queried why the landlord continued to use it. The resident requested for a complaint to be raised, and informed the landlord that he was seeking for it to use alternative methods of weed removal going forward. He later added that the glyphosate weed killer had resulted in his dogs’ paws being burnt.
4. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 August 2022. It stated that the chemical was safe and permitted for use within the country. In addition, it informed the resident that it regularly reviews relevant legislation. It also stated that it was highly unlikely that the chemical could have burnt his dogs’ paws as the type of glyphosate used was not an irritant and was very diluted. It added that it used the correct amount as shown in the manufacturer’s guidelines. It provided the resident with information and research on glyphosate, which had shown it was safe to use and unlikely to cause cancer. However, it informed the resident that it would review weed control as part of its ‘integrated waste contract’ through cabinet, and would consider the most environmentally friendly way of carrying out weed killing.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He had previously informed this Service of his dissatisfaction, stating that the chemical had affected his asthma, damaged his dog’s health permanently and resulted in the deaths of other dogs in the area. In addition, he was concerned about the environmental impact of the chemical. He was also unhappy that the landlord had not addressed his query relating to why it continued to use glyphosate, when other councils had banned it. Furthermore, he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling throughout the process, as he often had to chase responses. The resident is seeking for the landlord to adopt alternative methods of weed control, rather than to continue using glyphosate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

6. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s choice to use glyphosate as a weed killer during its ground’s maintenance. However, it should be noted that it is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to determine whether a landlord should or should not be using a specific type of weed killer. In addition, it is not within the authority of the Ombudsman to enforce legislation, or award damages relating to the weed killer. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its ground maintenance with regards to weeds.
7. In addition, the resident has stated that the landlord’s choice to use glyphosate as a weed killer impacted his health, and the health of his dog and other dogs in the area. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health as assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the Ombudsman is unable to provide. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its grounds maintenance with regards to weeds.

8. The landlord’s grounds maintenance policy states that it will apply herbicide as necessary to ensure all hard surfaces are free of weeds.
9. Within this case, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s choice of weed killer that was used during its ground’s maintenance of the land near his property. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s concerns, and reassured the resident that it was complying with any relevant legislation in relation to the glyphosate it had opted to use.
10. In addition, it provided the resident with information and research about glyphosate weed killer, and explained to the resident that it was permitted within the UK, and classed as safe to use. This is evidence that the landlord had recognised the resident’s concerns which had caused him to be distressed and in view of this, it had attempted to minimise any impact by re-assuring the resident that it had thoroughly investigated the use of the product.
11. The landlord relied on the opinions and knowledge of its qualified staff, which it was entitled to do. Moreover, it assured the resident that the staff completing any treatments of weeds as part of its ground maintenance works, were qualified and trained, with specialist equipment to assist in the safe completion of the treatments. Therefore, the landlord’s decision on how best to complete the grounds maintenance of the weeds was reasonable in the circumstances.
12. Furthermore, it understood that the resident was also concerned about the impact of the glyphosate weed killer on the environment. From the evidence provided, the landlord considered the resident’s concerns reasonably and it took appropriate action in view of this when it decided to include the weed killer within its next review, to consider the most environmentally friendly option for carrying out weed killing as part of its ground’s maintenance.
13. Whilst it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether there was a direct link between the weed killer used, and the health of either the resident or his dog, we can assess whether the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns. In this case, the landlord appropriately enquired about the specifications of the weed killer used from its qualified staff. Following this, it contacted the resident to confirm that the weed killer used was not an irritant and was also a diluted form of the chemical, which made it safe. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s claim, and it responded reasonably, in line with its obligations and the expectations of the Ombudsman.
14. Whilst the landlord had appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns, and provided detailed information to the resident in order to try to minimise any distress caused by his concerns, there were times where it could have improved its overall communication with the resident. On some occasions, such as on 15 April 2022, the resident had to request updates from the landlord. Although this impacted the resident at the time and led to the resident spending time and trouble pursuing his concerns, it did not have a significant impact overall. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the training needs of its staff in relation to communication with residents.
15. When considering the above factors, the landlord had considered the resident’s concerns reasonably, and tried to mitigate and minimise any distress and inconvenience for the resident by reassuring him that the product was safe to use, and treatments were carried out by its qualified staff. Ultimately, it had completed grounds maintenance of the weeds in line with its policies and obligations. In view of this, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its grounds maintenance with regards to weeds.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

16. The landlord’s complaint policy and procedure states that a stage one complaint response will be issued within 10 working days, a stage two complaint response would be issued within 25 working days and a stage three response would be issued within 30 working days.
17. In accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code, landlords must issue stage one complaint responses within 10 working days and stage two complaint responses within 20 working days. It also states that a stage three complaint response should be issued within 20 working days, if the landlord believes that a stage three is absolutely necessary. They must only extend these timescales by a further 10 working days exceptionally, and with an explanation and new timeframe provided to the resident, and they are obliged to self-assess their complaint handling against the code and publish this annually.
18. Given that the landlord’s complaints policy has different timescales listed to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and the last self-assessment available on the landlord’s website appears to be from 2020, it has therefore been ordered below to complete and publish such a self-assessment. It has also been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of our complaint handling code.
19. The resident raised his initial complaint on 1 April 2022 and following this, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 28 April 2022. This was a total of 18 working days, which is outside of the appropriate 10 working day timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaint policy, and the Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman.
20. In addition, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated on 29 April 2022, however, the landlord did not then issue its stage two complaint response until 17 July 2022. This was a total of 53 working days, which is outside of the appropriate timeframe of 20 working days, as per the Complaint Handling Code.
21. At both stages, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which impacted the resident and delayed his ability to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman. Where delays are likely to occur, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timescale in order to manage the resident’s expectations. In this case, no holding response was provided and therefore, the landlord failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord recognised in its stage two response that there had been a delay in it providing its response at both stage one and stage two, for which it apologised.
22. Whilst the Ombudsman does not believe a stage three within a complaints process is necessary, the landlord had provided the resident with information on escalating his complaint to the Ombudsman at stage two. It was the resident’s choice to escalate his complaint to stage three of the landlord’s process, and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s request. The resident requested the escalation on 13 July 2022, and the landlord issued its stage three response on 3 August 2022, which was a total of 15 working days. This was in line with the appropriate timeframe of 20 working days, as per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
23. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
24. In this case, the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the resident’s dissatisfaction with the delays throughout its complaints process and tried to put things right by apologising to the resident. However, the omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of compensation was a service failure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £100 would provide adequate redress for the failings listed above. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman, which states that compensation of £50 to £100 is appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings which were of a minimal or short duration, and attempted to put things right (in this case, by apologising) but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its grounds maintenance with regards to weeds.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders

27. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay £100 compensation to the resident within four weeks, in recognition of the delays in handling the resident’s complaint.
    2. Complete and publish a self-assessment of its corporate complaints policy and complaint handling against this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaint policy and procedure, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    4. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

28. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to communicating effectively with residents in order to manage their expectations.