Home Group Limited (202216903)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216903

Home Group Limited

19 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repair works to the resident’s garden.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. They occupy a three-bedroom house with a front garden. In the front garden there are steps up to a footpath through the centre of the garden. There is a grass lawn either side of the footpath. The garden is separated from the road in front of the house by a privet hedge.
The resident resides with another, joint, tenant. Both residents have conditions which make movement difficult. For simplicity, both residents are referred to as “the resident” in this report.
In April 2021, the resident reported damage to the garden because of a drainage issue. Following rain, parts of the garden began to wash away. At other times, the garden itself was “spongy” suggesting that the garden was retaining water. A soakaway was installed in the garden some time ago and there was a concern that it had become damaged or ineffective.
The landlord inspected the garden on 29 April 2021 and 25 May 2021. That inspection found that there was water pouring down a gutter four houses away which had no outlet. As a result, the water was flooding the resident’s garden.
Following these inspections, the resident understood that someone would be in contact within the next two weeks. The resident chased this contact a number of times over the next month. When no further information was forthcoming, the resident logged a complaint with the landlord on 30 June 2021.
The landlord recorded in its notes that the resident was originally told that nothing could be done about the damage. However, on 6 July 2021 it did a further inspection of the garden. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2021 to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. It told the resident that it was investigating the concerns and that it would complete an action plan within 10 days.
There was a delay in arranging works as the landlord’s contractor had suspended all garden work. The landlord did not log the job again until 3 September 2021. At this point a visit was arranged for the contractor to visit the garden to determine what works would be required. It was determined that the contractors would fit gravel boards in front of the privet hedge and backfill the garden to make it level. The customer requested that the landlord remove the privet hedge. Due to their mobility issues, the resident asked the landlord to replace the privet hedge with a fence to make it easier to maintain. The landlord refused this request.
Between 13 September and 13 October 2021, the landlord was in regular contact with the resident. The resident did not agree with the decision not to remove the hedge and therefore refused to allow the landlord to complete the other works. On 13 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage 1 response. It stated that the works planned would be the only works offered and removal of the hedge was not required. As the resident disagreed with this decision, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its procedure.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation. It confirmed that it would investigate the possibility of removing the privet hedge as well as arrange the outstanding works from stage 1.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It provided a summary of events so far. It confirmed that it would not remove the hedge, however it also referred the resident to another organisation to explore options for external funding. The landlord also advised that it had received agreement for other works to go ahead. This included:
1. Fitting gravel boards in the garden.
2. Backfilling the garden to remove the slope as far as possible.
3. Ensuring the gap between the garden and the privet no longer posed a hazard.
4. Redirecting drainage away from the garden.
Between March 2022 and July 2022 there was significant contact between the resident and the landlord. Initially these were to arrange a suitable date for the works to be completed. However, there was continued disagreement over the extent of the works. The landlord has provided a summary of the works it intended to complete. It appears this was sent in April 2022 however the pictures show two separate stages of development. Following some initial works, the gravel boards failed, and further work was needed to rectify them. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when this happened.
During this time there was additional work required to repair some drainage and guttering issues. There were also repairs completed to the fence around the garden steps. These works were completed and do not form part of the complaint.
On 28 July 2022, the landlord’s contractors attended to complete works. According to the contractors’ accounts, the resident disagreed strongly with the works being completed as they expected the garden to be completely level with the footpath. The contractors said that they would only level the garden up to a point just below the gravel boards. As agreement could not be reached the contractors left without completing the work. The landlord has since said that the contractors will not return to the property as a result of the interaction.
On 17 August 2022, the landlord sent a further final response to the resident. That letter said:
1. The privet hedge would remain the resident’s responsibility as per the tenancy agreement.
2. Gravel boards should be fitted around the edges of the garden.
3. The slope in the garden to be backfilled as far as possible.
4. Previous work was not of an acceptable standard and it apologised.
5. It was no longer able to complete the work required due to the resident’s behaviour.
6. It now considered the complaint closed.
The resident raised their complaint to this Service as they dispute the allegation of inappropriate behaviour and still want the work to be completed as agreed.

Assessment and findings

The responsibilities of both landlord and tenant are laid out in the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s responsibilities state they will keep the following in good repair:
1. the roof
2. drains, gutters, and external pipes
3. outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, outside woodwork, window frames and glass, including any necessary external painting or decoration
4. internal walls, skirting boards, doors and door frames, door jambs, thresholds, floors, and ceilings (but not painting and decoration)
5. major internal plaster work
6. chimneys and chimney stacks (but not sweeping the chimneys)
7. front pathways, hardstandings, steps, ramps and stairlifts (where provided or adopted by it or the Council)
8. boundary walls, gates, and fences, except those which divide the garden from other gardens
9. garages, sheds, and outbuildings (where provided or adopted by it or the Council).
Under the tenant’s responsibilities it says that a tenant must (among other things):
1. keep the garden in a tidy and well maintained condition
2. not remove any large tree or boundary shrub without our written permission
3. not allow hedges or boundary shrubs to become overgrown or cause a nuisance to neighbours.

The tenancy agreement also states that where a tenant fails to reasonably maintain their home, the landlord will do the work and pass the cost on to the tenant.

The landlord has also provided its policies in relation to:
1. Neighbourhood and Estate Management.
2. Property Management (including Aids and Adaptations).
3. Complaints.
4. Managing Unacceptable Behaviour.
The original damage to the garden was caused by faulty drainage at a property owned by the landlord. This meant that the landlord was responsible for returning the garden to an acceptable standard. It is worth mentioning that the responsibility only requires the work to be acceptable, and not necessarily in line with the resident’s expectations.
Following the initial inspection, the landlord told the resident that there was nothing which could be done in respect of the damage to the garden. There does seem to be confusion around this point. However, the resident seemingly expected work to be completed, and the landlord accepted in later responses that works should have been planned. This would have been confusing for the resident and may have contributed to some of the breakdown in communication later.
After the resident raised the complaint, the landlord inspected the garden again which confirmed that works were required. Originally it was believed that a soakaway under the garden may be causing some of the problems, but this could not be confirmed until the soakaway was uncovered. The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would create an action plan by 24 July 2021. However, it did not contact the resident again until September 2021. According to internal emails from the landlord, it attempted to contact a contractor directly who was on holiday. It then failed to log the repairs on its internal systems meaning it was not picked up again until the resident made contact.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 September 2021 to arrange completion of the works. During this conversation, the resident asked the landlord to remove the privet hedge and replace it with a wall and fence. This was because the resident was struggling to maintain the hedge due to mobility issues. The landlord’s records show that the hedge was over two meters in height on the external side and this was likely to require the resident to use a step-ladder to maintain.
The landlord insisted that maintenance of the privet was the resident’s responsibility as per the tenancy agreement. The resident argued that the tenancy agreement was signed 30 years ago and they were no longer able to maintain the hedge. The communication at this point seemed to break down between the two parties. Due to a refusal to remove the hedge, the resident declined to continue the rest of the required works.
Clearly it is not good for either party that this dispute resulted in the works not being completed. We are concerned that the landlord did not seem to revisit this conversation at any point between 14 September 2021 and when it issued its stage 1 response on 13 November 2021. The longer this dispute dragged on the more entrenched positions became. When the complaint was reinvestigated at stage 2, the resident agreed for the works to continue without removing the hedge, although the landlord also agreed to investigate that aspect.
The landlord has provided an internal email from 10 January 2022 which shows that it did explore the possibility of removing the hedge. It confirmed that other properties in the area had this work done. This was not feasible for the resident’s property because of the height difference between the garden and the road outside. The privet hedge was acting as a buffer between the two and were the hedge removed a substantial retaining wall would need to be installed alongside a fence. We cannot see anywhere in the landlord’s emails that this was explained to the customer. We are pleased that the landlord did explore this option in good faith but are concerned that the full reasons for not doing it were not explained to the resident as far as we can see.
The stage 2 response explained that the hedges were the resident’s responsibility. The landlord also referred the resident to an external provider of grants for home improvements. Although that provider was unable to help, we think it was good practice for the landlord to signpost the resident in this way.
Based on the tenancy agreement and responsibilities of the landlord, we agree that the landlord is not responsible for removing the hedge. The landlord’s property management policy does allow for aids and adaptations to a resident’s home to assist with a disability. However, that would only apply to permanent adaptations to the house itself, and not to assist with maintenance outside the house. Therefore, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to remove the hedge.
After the stage 2 response was issued, there continued to be disagreement between the landlord and resident about the extent of the works required. The landlord did some work in February 2022 and a home visit took place in March 2022 to agree next steps. There was a discussion about removing the soakaway in the garden at this stage. The landlord confirmed the determined works to the resident on 26 April 2022 and the landlord’s contractors were originally due to complete the work around May 2022.
In May 2022, the landlord repaired some of the drainage and guttering around the property but did not complete the garden works. A further discussion took place about the gravel boards and levelling the garden however this resulted in disagreement. The resident was under the impression that the garden would come up to the height of the gravel board and footpath. The landlord said that some of the gravel board would be visible along the top (which the resident considered a trip hazard) and the garden would be reasonably level, but not level with the footpath.
Based on the communication we have seen, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about what works had been agreed. The resident was also genuinely concerned as they believed that contractors were being sent to the property with incorrect information. The landlord’s contractors attended on 8 July 2022 to inspect the drainage again and works began on 13 July 2022. Following this visit it was determined that the soakaway did not need to be removed. The remaining garden works were arranged for 28 July 2022. When the contractors attended on that date, they left before completing the job as the resident believed they did not have the correct information.
The contractors told the landlord that the resident was “rude and abrupt” and insisted that the garden be completely levelled to the footpath. The contractor reported that this was not the first time they had faced this behaviour and therefore would no longer attend this property. The resident disputes this account and said the contractors were only scoping the work and not doing any and did not seem to be aware of the works that had been agreed upon.
The main cause of concern for the resident appears to be the potential for trip hazards around the garden. The resident wanted the garden completely level with the gravel board and the footpath. The resident said that their granddaughter had fallen between the garden and the hedge at some point and they were worried about the safety of the garden.
The landlord does have a duty to make the garden reasonably safe following the damage caused by faulty drainage. However, it is only required to do this to the extent outlined in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. As the work has not been completed it is not possible to conclude that the works the landlord has recommended would be unsafe. As explained earlier, it is also for the landlord to determine the works required to repair the damage, and there is no requirement for those works to be to the satisfaction of the resident, providing they are safe and not in disrepair.
With this in mind, we cannot find that the landlord has failed to complete any required works. However, it is also clear that the communication between the landlord and the resident has become increasingly strained. On 17 August 2022, the landlord wrote a second final response to the resident. It explained that it would not remove the privet hedges for the reasons explained previously and that it would not complete remaining works on the garden. The landlord said this was due to the behaviour of the resident and that its contractor would no longer visit the property.
We are concerned that the landlord has decided to discharge its duty so quickly on this occasion. There is no indication at any stage that the resident was warned about their behaviour or that the landlord intended to follow its Managing Unacceptable Behaviour policy. The decision of the landlord’s external contractors does not impact on the landlord’s duties to complete the required repairs and therefore we consider that the landlord must revisit this decision.
There seemed to be several times where the resident and contractors did not have the same understanding on what work was agreed. We consider that it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure there was a shared understanding of any repairs. This is considered a service failure. However, we can see no error in how the landlord determined what works were required and therefore we cannot ask it to do any more than it has already offered to do.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been a service failure in respect of the repairs to the resident’s garden. This is because it failed to communicate appropriately with all parties involved in the repair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is hereby ordered that the landlord make written contact with the resident which confirms the following:
1. That it will offer to complete the remaining works outlined in its final response.
2. When those works will be completed by.
3. An explanation of the works to be completed and works which will not be completed. This explanation should take into account the resident’s concerns.
The landlord should ensure that any amendments to these works are explained, in writing and without delay, to the resident and anyone who carries out the work on its behalf.
It is also ordered that the landlord pay £100 to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.
The landlord should provide confirmation of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its process for communicating with its contractors. That review should ensure that any works agreed between itself and contractors are recorded and shared with residents.
The landlord should review its process for determining unacceptable behaviour and ensuring expectations are clearly communicated with residents.
The landlord should consider whether it has any other means to assist the resident in maintaining the privet hedge. While it does not have a responsibility to maintain the hedge, the tenancy agreement does state that it will where the resident does not. If this is a chargeable service, then the landlord should explain this to the resident.