Longhurst Group Limited (202203392)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203392

Longhurst Group Limited

17 May 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 the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request for a replacement radiator.
   2. The resident’s reports of works required to the garden of the property.
   3. The resident’s request for works to the fencing.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
5. The complaint about the resident’s request for a replacement radiator is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because, while the resident raised this issue in her original complaint to the landlord, no evidence has been provided to this Service to indicate that she requested for it to be escalated to stage two of its internal complaints process. The stage two decision does not include further consideration of this issue. Thus, it did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process.
6. If this issue remains ongoing, then the resident should consider making a new complaint to the landlord as there has been a considerable lapse of time since the previous one.

Background and summary of events

7. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a two bedroom flat with a garden. The resident lives at the property with her son who has mobility problems and autism.
8. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 1 November 2021 in which she stated that she had chased the landlord on many occasions regarding her report that her garden needed levelling and draining so that her disabled son could use it. She had also reported that the fence panels needed to be dropped to allow grass to grow. She said that the garden issue had been outstanding for six months, and that because of a promise made by the landlord in May 2021 to resolve it, she had lost the opportunity of raising alternative funding for the garden work.
9. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, of 12 November 2021, it provided a list of contacts with the resident on this issue. This including one on 3 November 2021 in which it stated that it would attend the property to take photos of the garden to assess what work could be done to alleviate potential flooding. It said that arrangements would be made for a housing officer to visit the resident to inspect the issue.
10. As the issue remained unresolved, in its final decision, of 29 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in its complaints process for which it offered the resident £100 compensation. It also acknowledged that it had delayed in resolving the garden issue for which it offered her £250 in compensation for the inconvenience caused. It said that a contractor had attended that day and identified a solution to the drainage problem and said that the work would be done. It said the fencing would not be lowered as it was in good condition and protected the resident’s privacy. The landlord completed the works to the garden on 4 November 2022.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, stating that she was seeking additional compensation and that the work to her garden be completed including it being levelled so that it is safe for her son.

Assessment and findings

12. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident defines the property to include fences and garden. Under the terms of the agreement the landlord is to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and working order. The resident’s obligations in respect of the garden are limited to keeping it tidy and not planting conifers or other plants that may damage the property. It is noted that the landlord has not disputed its responsibility to deal with flooding and/or drainage issues.
13. The resident informed the landlord, on 22 September 2021, about a letter she had received from its garden funding scheme to which she had made an application. The letter stated that the work to her garden would be to mow the grass and cut back bushes. She said this work did not apply to her because the issue she had reported was problems with garden drainage.
14. On 7 October, the resident chased the landlord to state that she was awaiting a call back following a visit to the property a fortnight previously during which it had discussed measures to resolve the drainage issues. She contacted the landlord again on 20 October 2021 asking for an update on the garden. As she received no response, she made a formal complaint to the landlord on 1 November 2021.
15. The landlord emailed the resident, on 3 November 2021, apologising for the delay in responding and saying that it would attend that day to take photographs so it could assess what work needs to be done to alleviate potential flooding in the garden. In her emailed response of the same date, the resident expressed her confusion about this as she stated that photographs had been taken previously.
16. In the stage one decision, the landlord having reviewed its records set out two additional occasions when the resident contacted it for updates (24 September 2021 and 20 October 2021). In response to the complaint the landlord said that it had been arranged that a housing officer would attend the premises to discuss what could be done to help.
17. Following this, on 17 November 2021, the resident cancelled a visit by the landlord to view the garden and asked that it be re-arranged. No evidence has been provided to this Service to indicate that it was re-arranged. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to arrange a further visit.
18. On 12 May 2022, six months later, the resident called the landlord to seek updates about the garden works. She referred to the cancellation of the visit on 17 November 2021 and stated that she understood that the landlord was to get the work done through the gardening fund. The landlord advised that she could progress her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. She chase the landlord on at least two more occasions in May 2022, stating that matter had been outstanding for more than a year.
19. The landlord contacted the resident, on 24 May 2022, explaining that it awaited advice from its Landscapes and Property Services team as to a possible solution to the issue of the garden. On 1 June 2022, it attempted to send an email to the resident advising her that the team was unable to assist and expressing misgivings that a solution to the garden issue will be found. The evidence shows that this remained “pending” and was not sent. She called the landlord for an update on the same day and the pending email was read out to her. The resident became upset and stated that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, which she did on 9 June 2022.
20. In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delays in dealing with the resident’s complaint about works to the garden. In doing so, it offered the resident compensation of £250. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for awards between £250 to £700 for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, where there may be no permanent impact on the resident.
21. This Service finds that the award of £250 does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the works to her garden. The evidence indicates that the resident was adversely affected for over a year, being unable to allow her disabled son to use the garden as it was uneven and did not drain. The particular circumstances of her son meant that she was significantly impacted on by the landlord’s inaction in this period. In handling the matter, the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the circumstances of the resident and her son.
22. In relation to the failure identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
23. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for the delay in getting the matter resolved, this Service finds that an additional compensation of £200 is warranted for this aspect of the complaint.
24. The landlord further explained that the fence was in good condition and did not require repair. It also decided that it would not lower the fence, as the resident had requested. Its reason was that doing so would affect the resident’s privacy as her garden abuts a car park. The landlord said that if the resident wished to replace the fence herself then it would consider her request. In the absence of any evidence that the fence required repair, this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. Furthermore, its explanations indicated that it had taken the privacy and security of the property seriously and would not prevent her from replacing the fence if she wanted to do so.
25. With respect to the complaints process at stage two, the evidence indicates that the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 June 2022, acknowledging her escalation request and backdating it to 9 June 2022. It stated that it would respond by 7 July 2022, in accordance with its complaints process and within the time prescribed by this Service. However, it did not provide the decision until it was chased by this Service. The landlord provided the stage two response to the resident on 29 July 2022. This was 16 working days outside the date provided for in its complaints process.
26. In its response, the landlord apologised that its stage 2 response was late and to put this acknowledged service failure right, offered the resident £100 in compensation. This sum was in accordance with its compensation policy which provides for awards of between £50 and £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident of short duration which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. By awarding an amount towards the mid-point in the scale the landlord acknowledged that there had been detriment caused to the resident by the delay in providing her with a stage two response. This Service is satisfied that the amount offered by the landlord adequately compensated for its actions with respect to the delays to responding to the complaint at this stage.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement radiator is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of works to the garden.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for works to the fencing.

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered pay to the resident the total sum of £550 in compensation. This comprises the sum of £350 previously offered (which includes £100 for complaint handling) if it has not already done so, together with an additional sum of £200 compensation.
31. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order within 28 calendar days of this report.