The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Nottingham City Homes Limited (202307947)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307947

Nottingham City Homes Limited

26 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to carry out fencing works.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy started on 5 January 2023. At the time of the complaint the resident lived in the property with her 2 year old son. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The property is a 2 bedroom end of terrace house. There is 6 foot high wooden panel fencing around the rear garden and a metal railing fence around the front/side garden. There was an opening in the metal fence where gates were missing. For the purposes of this report the term ‘fencing’ refers collectively to both the fence and gates.
  3. When the resident viewed the property there were fence panels missing in the rear garden. There were no metal gates to the front which left a large gap giving access onto the street. Following discussions with the landlord the resident understood that these matters would be resolved before she moved into the property. However, the landlord advised that fencing was her responsibility and it that it would not carry out further works.
  4. An internal email sent by the landlord on 13 July 2023 shows that the landlord intended to replace the fence panels on 7 July. However, in an email to this Service on 15 July 2024 the landlord confirmed it had not carried out works because fencing was the resident’s responsibility.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023. She said that some fence panels were broken and some were missing, giving access to 2 neighbouring gardens. The driveway gates were also missing. She said on the day she was shown the property the landlord advised that these would be fixed. She had struggled to contact the landlord and when she did she was told that it did not offer fencing or gates anymore. She said she would not have signed for the property had she known the boundary would be insecure.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 April 2023 in which it said it had interviewed the lettings officer involved. The officer said they had committed to reporting the fencing for “assessment” but did not promise what would get done, if anything, and what would not. It said its current policy was that tenants look after their own boundaries to maintain decency, in line with the tenancy agreement. The resident’s complaint was not upheld.
  7. On 10 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate her stage 2 complaint because the fencing had not been fixed or replaced. She maintained her position that she had been told works would be carried out. She expressed concern that her son could access the road. She said this was particularly dangerous because she lived on a “corner junction in a busy built up area.” Furthermore, she reported that the neighbouring property was empty and people were walking through her garden to gain access. She had obtained her own quote for the work but could not afford it.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2023 in which it said:
    1.  Where its stage 1 complaint response said the fencing would be reported for assessment in line with its process, it could have been clearer that this was “primarily aimed at the longer-term estate management and is undertaken by the asset management team, rather than being a responsive function undertaken by our repairs team”
    2. It reiterated its position that the lettings officer did not promise to carry out works. It said this was consistent with the fact they were referring the matter onto another team for consideration.
    3. The tenancy agreement said that tenants were responsible for fences and gates.
    4. It concluded its previous advice was correct and the complaint was not upheld.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 11 October 2023 to report that works to her fence and gates were outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. Clause 3.9 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states “gardens, hedges, fences and gates, garages and outbuildings. You are responsible for making sure that your gardens, yards, hedges, fences and gates, garages and other outbuildings at your home are repaired and maintained, they must be kept in a good and tidy condition and are kept free from refuse or unwanted items.”
  2. The landlord’s new home standard says that sheds, gardens and garages will be structurally safe, clean and tidy.
  3. Its repairs policy says that tenants are responsible for maintaining boundaries and hedges.
  4. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In both cases, if a longer period is required to carry out the investigation and respond, a further period of up to 10 working days can be agreed. The customer will be advised of this in writing and the reasons provided.
  5. Its discretionary compensation policy says it will consider discretionary compensation to a resident who has incurred inconvenience due to a service failure.

Scope of investigation

  1. In her stage 1 complaint of 28 March 2023 the resident raised the issue of the fencing along with some additional repair issues. The repair issues were resolved after the stage 1 response and were therefore not raised by the resident again in her stage 2 complaint of 10 May. In a telephone call to this Service on 11 October the resident asked us to consider compensation for issues relating to those repairs. This is outside the scope of this investigation because the repair issues were not raised at stage 2 and therefore have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 42 of the housing ombudsman scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. The void specification of works dated 15 November 2022 notes that fencing was ‘ordered’ and that an email was sent to repairs. The entries on the work sheet include ‘renew fence posts to front/rear garden dividing fence’ and ‘renew rear or dividing fence to the raised area of garden.’ On 15 November an internal email was sent to request that a survey be carried out of the fencing and gates.
  4. The landlord’s new home standard says gardens will be structurally safe, clean and tidy. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord took steps to secure the boundary. However, there is no evidence that this was actioned which was inappropriate. This is because the property was exposed to the neighbouring gardens reducing privacy and security.
  5. An internal email dated 30 March 2023 confirmed that during the previous year it had been agreed that fencing works identified at the voids stage would need to be carried out by that team. It said that any referrals from the voids team were closed and passed back. This is evidence that an internal miscommunication contributed to the works not being carried out at the void stage which was inappropriate.
  6. A further email was sent on 4 January 2023 requesting that the missing fence panels and gates be “sorted.” The email noted that the neighbouring gardens to the rear were exposed. The repairs team replied on 5 January to say the job was raised for 11 January. However, there are no further records relating to this request. At the time of the new tenant visit carried out on 18 January 2023 the works remained outstanding.
  7. Following receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023, the voids manager sent an internal email. In it they said “it concerns me that while I am aware a tenant has to maintain their own fencing, not being any in the first place can cause complaints from them, as they deem the property insecure. Children cannot go out to play due to road safety (…).”
  8. Given the landlord’s obligations under its new home standard these were valid points. There is no record of any further discussion around this point. However, a file note dated 29 March 2023 said the void policy around fencing was being reviewed. In an email to this Service dated 19 July 2024 the landlord confirmed there was no void policy in place at the time of the complaint.
  9. An internal email dated 29 March 2023 confirmed that the lettings officer who showed the resident around the property had said they would report the fencing to repairs for someone to come and assess. She had not promised that work would be carried out. The email of 4 January was attached. However, its position was not consistent with the content of the email which asked for the issues to be “sorted,” rather than for an assessment to be carried out.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 13 April 2023 referred to the tenancy agreement which said that maintenance of the fencing was the tenant’s responsibility. It was unreasonable for the landlord to refer to the agreement as its reason for not carrying out the work. The tenant was not questioning whether it was her responsibility to maintain the fencing rather the condition of it when she moved into the property. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to assess its response against its new home standard.
  11. Following receipt of the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 10 May 2023 the landlord carried out a property inspection on 7 June. It confirmed that 2 fence panels were missing from the rear garden. An internal email was sent to the repairs team to request that the missing panels be replaced. A further email confirms works were scheduled for 7 July. While it was positive that the landlord intended to carry out the works there is no evidence as to why it changed its earlier position.
  12. Furthermore, in its stage 2 complaint response of 23 June 2023 the landlord changed its position and once again confirmed it would not carry out works because it was the resident’s responsibility. For the reasons set out above this was an inappropriate point of reference.
  13. Despite the content of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the landlord sent an internal email on 13 July 2023 to chase the works discussed internally on 7 June. This is a further example of a lack of communication and inconsistent approach within the organisation. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a reply or any further discussion around whether the works would go ahead and if not, why.

Events post internal complaints process

  1. In its email to this Service of 15 July 2024 the landlord confirmed that “the decision was made that the work the customer was requesting was not necessary and/or the tenant’s own responsibility. As such, no further actions have been taken to carry out the work the customer has requested.”

Summary

  1. The landlord raised the fencing works at the void stage, in line with its new home standard. However, a miscommunication meant that the fencing works were not actioned accordingly. We do not doubt that the lettings officer meant that the fencing would be assessed however, the communication to the resident was not sufficiently clear to ensure she understood the fencing and gates would not be installed. The landlord should have set out in writing what works it would and would not undertake as part of the voids process to manage the resident’s expectations. There is no evidence that it did so in this case and therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident believed an undertaking had been given to install the fencing and gates.
  2. In its formal complaint responses the landlord took the position that the resident was responsible for the maintenance of the fencing under the terms of her tenancy agreement. It was inappropriate of the landlord to cite the tenancy agreement as its reason for not carrying out works. It should have evaluated its response against its new home standard which says it will provide gardens that are structurally safe, clean and tidy. The evidence shows that the garden boundary was not safe or tidy.
  3. Furthermore, there is evidence of inconsistent decision making by the landlord. This is because during the complaint period officers attempted to order the works which were never completed.
  4. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they adversely affected the resident. It failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. The landlord has been ordered to put things right and to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 29 March saying it would respond on 14 April. This was inappropriate because that was a response time of 12 working days instead of 10 as stated in its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 29 March to confirm that its response would be delayed due to the bank holiday and annual leave. It extended its response time by a further 10 working days, in line with its policy. The landlord issued its response on 13 April in line with its original target.
  3. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 10 May 2023. The landlord provided a response on 23 June which was 31 working days later, and 11 days out of time. It is unclear why the response was delayed, therefore it was unreasonable. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay and therefore failed to consider redress which was inappropriate.
  4. This was a service failure because there was a minor failure in the service it provided which it did not acknowledge or put right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to carry out fencing works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to;
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation comprised of:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s request to carry out fencing works.
      2. £50 for the distress caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
    3. Carry out necessary works to secure the garden boundaries to ensure they are safe and tidy. Confirmation that works have been carried out should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should review its new home standard and voids policy to ensure its position with regards to fencing at the void stage is clear. It should satisfy itself that it has appropriate processes in place to ensure that it communicates what works it will and will not do to residents.