Leeds City Council (202115815)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115815

Leeds City Council

03 February 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:
   1. The landlords handling of works to cut back overgrown vegetation encroaching on the resident’s garden.
   2. The landlord’s handling of works to install additional fencing around the resident’s garden.
   3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to an outhouse door.
   4. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property, a 2–bedroom house, since 2014, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
3. The resident requested that the landlord attend the property to cut back overgrown vegetation encroaching on her garden from neighbouring land. She also asked that the landlord install additional fencing along the property’s boundary, as there were gaps in the existing fencing and her garden was not secure. The resident stated that the overgrowth and rubbish that had built up on neighbouring land for the past 7 years had led to an infestation of rats in her garden, shed and home. She stated that these issues had been reported previously but the landlord had taken no action.
4. As part of its initial formal complaint response the landlord agreed to obtain a quote and arrange for the overgrown vegetation to be cut back but was unable to confirm the date as its contractor was currently working through a backlog. The landlord was unable to determine what works had been agreed previously, as the resident’s Housing Officer no longer worked for the organisation.
5. A pest control contractor inspected and produced a report for the landlord, noting that there was ‘overgrown vegetation to side and back of garden which doesn’t belong to this property’. This was contributing to the pest issue and should be removed as soon as possible. The operative also observed that rats had gnawed through the door of the outhouse and 3 adult rats were present within the shed. The landlord raised an order for renewal of the outhouse door and requested that the relevant team expedite the works.
6. A quote for works to cut back the overgrown vegetation was obtained. The resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint as she had not received an update 2 weeks after the initial inspection. She also complained that the contractor had been instructed only to remove her back fence, which was incorrect as the landlord had agreed, ‘that the back and sides would be rectified and my boundaries would be set where they should be’. The resident requested a new fence be erected ‘where it should have been’ when she signed the tenancy agreement. The landlord had also failed to complete the repair to the outhouse door.
7. A contractor attended to cut back the overgrown vegetation and the landlord then responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process. It stated that the works to cut back the overgrowth had been completed to a satisfactory standard and noted that the contractor’s operatives denied being rude. The landlord explained that a different contractor was responsible for installing a fence, ‘to the section of the garden bordering the garage roof and to close the gap left by removing the former boundary’. Its target completion date for the repair to the outhouse door was 25 September 2021.
8. The resident has complained to this Service that neither the works to the fence nor to the outhouse door were progressed as promised. The landlord has explained that this was due to an error with its systems. It is understood that works to repair the outhouse door were due to commence on 20 January 2022 and works to install the fence on 24 January 2022. It is not known whether these works have now been completed.
9. The resident has also raised concerns about broken glass and tiles left in the area to the rear of the property. As this issue did not form part of the original complaint, the Ombudsman is unable to consider it as part of this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme. The landlord informs the Ombudsman that it referred the matter to its contractor on 15 October 2021 but has since had difficulty gaining access to inspect. The resident is advised to contact the landlord to discuss this and can raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she remains dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook confirms that it is responsible for repairs to fences ‘subject to the Fencing Policy criteria’. It states that a tenant is responsible for repairs and maintenance to their garden and trees. General, non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
11. The landlord’s Fencing Policy states that it is not legally responsible for the provision, repair, maintenance or replacement of fences under the repair responsibilities implied by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It may, however, use its discretion to provide, maintain, repair or replace fencing, at a tenant’s request. Such works, if agreed, would normally be categorised as non-urgent unless there were exceptional circumstances, such as potential safety hazards or a risk of damage to property.
12. The resident’s Tenancy Agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, and that repairs should be completed within a reasonable time. The Tenancy Agreement is silent on the responsibilities of the parties in respect of the garden, fencing and any outbuildings.

Works to cut back vegetation

13. The landlord has not confirmed who is responsible for the maintenance of the adjacent, overgrown land, although it has indicated that this belongs to a neighbouring property. It is not known whether this property is let or managed by the landlord.
14. The first recorded report of overgrown vegetation was on 8 July 2020, according to the evidence provided by landlord. The resident states that she first reported this issue several years ago. The Ombudsman will normally only investigate complaints that were referred to the landlord as a formal complaint within 6 months of the matters arising, as provided in paragraph 39(e) of the housing Ombudsman Scheme. As no formal complaint was raised in the 6 months following the report of 8 July 2020, this investigation is focussed on the action the landlord took following the formal complaint of 14 June 2021, when the resident reported that the issues were ongoing.
15. The resident would ordinarily be responsible for the maintenance of her own garden, although the landlord would be expected to take action to follow up on complaints about the maintenance of neighbouring land that it, or its tenants, are responsible for. As a resolution to the complaint, and on the advice of its pest control contractor, the landlord arranged for the overgrowth to be cut back, which demonstrated a willingness to resolve the issue for the resident in a timely manner.
16. The landlord promptly contacted its contractor to request an inspection and quote, and appropriately managed the resident’s expectations about the timeframe for completing the works. An inspection was carried out and the works were completed 30 working days after the complaint was made. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable, given that the landlord had anticipated and warned the resident of a likely delay beyond its usual timescales.
17. The resident’s escalation request of 22 July 2021 does not contain all of the complaint details listed in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The final response of 11 August 2021 referred to a complaint about the contractor’s operatives’ behaviour and the standard and quality of the works completed. This suggests that subsequent discussions took place with the resident that have not been documented and raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
18. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the works to cut back the overgrowth, as this was completed in a timely manner and the landlord reviewed the works to confirm that they had been completed to a satisfactory standard.

Works to install fencing

19. The landlord exercised its discretion to agree to install additional fencing in the resident’s garden, as a ‘gesture of goodwill’. The evidence indicates that the maintenance of the fencing was not an obligation of the landlord. However, it failed to clarify this in its decisions at both stages of the complaint, thus, the resident fully expected that the timely completion of the works. Having committed to undertaking the works, it should have been completed within a reasonable time. The landlord’s failure to raise an order to complete these works until 5 months after it confirmed it would do so amounts to service failure, as this was part of the resolution it offered to the resident’s complaint. Had the landlord progressed these works within a reasonable time or provided the resident with an update, this aspect of the complaint may not have been escalated to this Service.

Repair to outhouse door

20. The landlord has explained that the works order raised for the repair to the outhouse door was not passed to the correct contractor. The resident was assured in the final complaint response of 11 August 2020 that this work would be completed by 25 September 2021. She received no further update, and it was not until this Service intervened that the landlord raised an order to complete the works. There was maladministration by the landlord due to a significant delay in completing these works of almost 4 months.

Complaints handling

21. The landlord’s complaint responses refer to issues not detailed in the documentary evidence provided to this investigation. The failure to provide this evidence has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to determine whether the complaint was fully investigated and if it received an appropriate response.
22. In addition, the landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it was unable to determine whether the issues had been raised previously, as the resident’s former Housing Officer no longer worked for the organisation. The landlord should keep contemporaneous records of its contact with residents, including all reports of issues and requests for works to be completed. The landlord’s failure to do so in this case meant that it was unable to investigate whether it had failed to follow up on previous reports.
23. There was service failure by the landlord as it did not complete the works it had agreed to undertake in order to resolve the complaint. The landlord has not offered compensation for the delay and so the Ombudsman makes Orders for proportionate compensation, in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance, in recognition of the impact on the resident.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of works to cut back overgrown vegetation.
    2. Maladministration (service failure) in respect of the landlord’s handling of works to install additional fencing around the resident’s garden.
    3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the outhouse door.
    4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

25. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the delay in completing works to install fencing and to renew the outhouse door.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaints handling.
    3. Write to the resident to apologise for failing to complete works to install fencing in her garden and to renew the outhouse door, within a reasonable time.
    4. Review its record keeping policies and procedures to ensure that adequate and accurate records are kept of contact with residents.
    5. Ensure that any outstanding works to install additional fencing and to renew the outhouse door are completed.