Platform Housing Group Limited (202009610)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009610

Platform Housing Group Limited

16 April 2021


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 decision not to level the garden at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Policies, procedures and agreements

  1. The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to maintain the garden and, where the resident wishes to make improvements, permission must first be sought from the landlord. 
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
    1. it aims to investigate and provide a response to a complaint at stage one of its process within 15 working days.
    2. where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation of the matter to the landlord’s stage two ‘final review’ procedure and where the request for escalation is accepted, the landlord aims to provide a response within 15 working days here also.
    3. the landlord reserves the right to decline an escalation request where the complainant has been unable to provide additional evidence, the reasons set out have already been considered at stage one and where a review of the complaint would not provide a different outcome of the initial investigation.
    4. Prior to the landlord’s formal complaint procedure, it operates a ‘quick resolution’ process where straight forward complaints which the member of staff receiving it determines they can deal with promptly, will do so. This will be done within two working days.

Summary of events

  1. On 20 October 2017 the resident reported to the landlord a sharp edged paved area towards the back of the garden and asked if it could be removed. There is no further information as to whether any works were carried out in respect of this.
  2. Two years later, around 2 July 2019, the resident’s daughter is said to have fallen over on uneven steps in the garden and hit her head. Having reported this to the landlord, on around 14 July 2019, it carried out an inspection, took photographs of the garden and raised repairs to “sort the steps out”. However, these were never carried out, as a second inspection determined that there was no defect.
  3. The following year, on 1 June 2020, the resident reported that the cracks in the garden were getting wider and would be so wide soon that her daughter’s foot might get caught, making reference to the accident of the previous year. In response, the landlord raised an inspection of the garden and for further photographs to be taken.
  4. Around 15 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord reporting an accident her partner had had in the garden two days earlier, where he was said to have tripped in a crack in the garden, which led to a swollen or broken ankle and provided photographs of the injury. 
  5. The landlord carried out an inspection on 9 July 2020 and concluded that the following works were required: “‘Lift any size existing precast concrete paving flag, fill and compact hardcore to soft spots and re-bed existing flags on 25mm bed of 8 cement mortar (1:4) and point up joints”. An appointment was scheduled for 14 July 2020 for this work to be carried out. However, when the operative attended on that day, further photographs were taken, and the previously identified works were not undertaken as he found that there was no defect.
  6. On 16 July 2020 the resident complained to the landlord about it not levelling off the garden which her daughter and partner had both had accidents in. She feared for the safety of her young daughter and wanted the landlord to level the garden. She said she had been raising this issue since she had moved in (in 2017) and the repairs team had told her to go to the planning team, but she was not getting anywhere. As an outcome to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to level the garden by using soil, slabs, paving or decking. Having discussed the issues further with the landlord, the resident then submitted photographs in support on 23 July 2020.
  7. The landlord responded the following day, advising that it would not be carrying out any works as, having inspected the area, it had not identified any safety issues. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this response, reiterating her reasons and the accidents that had happened. She believed the gardens to have been rushed in order to get tenants in and felt it was “irresponsible” of the landlord to let the property to her when it knew she had children. She said the operatives who had taken photographs had commented on how uneven it was, although one had said that nothing could be done. She did not see why it would be her responsibility to level the garden when she was a tenant and not a homeowner.
  8. The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with her by telephone on 28 or 29 July 2020 and formally acknowledged her complaint by email, saying that it would provide a response within 15 working days. A further inspection of the garden was then carried out on 31 July 2020.
  9. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 12 August 2020, it did not uphold the complaint. It explained that nothing could be done to address the natural slope which was the topography of the site and the only way the garden would be levelled would be by installing decking. This would need to be done at the resident’s own cost and she would first need to seek its permission if this was something she wished to do.
  10. On the same date, the resident emailed the landlord, requesting escalation of her complaint, on the basis that it was its responsibility to level the garden or pay for decking to be laid, rather than hers. She quoted information she had found on the internet regarding garden responsibilities of landlords and tenants and said that the garden was a “botch job” to get tenants in quickly and she wanted the landlord to level it so that her children could play safely.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 18 August 2020 and said that it would provide its decision within 15 working days. It then wrote to the resident on 9 September 2020 to advise that it would not be escalating the complaint as no new information had been provided, the reasons for escalation had already been considered at stage one, and these reasons would not lead to a different outcome.
  12. The landlord made reference to the tenancy, specifically, the resident’s obligations to maintain the garden. It also noted that it had responded to the reports made and carried out inspections of the garden on a number of occasions and, having reviewed the reports made in respect of these visits by its compliance and assets team, it agreed with these findings. It did not find the garden to be a health and safety risk.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident accepted the property in the condition that she found it and that included the fact that the garden was on a slope, it had a particular layout and there were paving slabs laid. This is the principle of ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘buyer beware’, which applies irrespective of whether the resident believes that tenants were rushed into the properties or that the quality of workmanship was poor.
  2. In any event, the resident moved into the new build property in 2017 and did not raise a formal complaint about the condition of the garden until July 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  3. This is supported by paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that this Service “will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint, within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. Therefore, whilst events from 2017 to 2019 are referenced for context, this assessment is focussed on events from the start of 2020.
  4. The resident is clearly very concerned about the uneven garden, the cracks in the ground, and the sharp paving slabs in it. The accidents she has reported have served to confirm her fears and amplify her wish for the landlord to level the garden as she has requested. Whilst this Service appreciates her concerns, the fact remains that the landlord is not obliged, under the terms of the tenancy agreement or its policies, to level the garden in any of the ways that the resident has requested. Instead, she is responsible for maintenance to the garden in accordance with her obligations under the tenancy agreement and similarly, is entitled to ask permission to level the garden herself.
  5. The landlord, having been notified of a problem, attended the property within a reasonable period to carry out an inspection and, having done this, determined that there were no defects in the garden and therefore no repairs or works were required. Whilst the resident disagreed with its conclusions, it was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified contractor in responding to both the initial request and the subsequent complaint. It then demonstrated that it took the complaint seriously by conducting a further inspection, which ultimately reached the same conclusion.
  6. Levelling the garden would therefore constitute an improvement, which the landlord is not required to make in law. However, the resident is able to make a request to do this herself, which the landlord has explained.
  7. Despite the landlord’s substantive position on the matter being correct, it did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations, in firstly deciding that works were required and later changing its mind. It is not known why or how this happened and it only served to disappoint and frustrate the resident, having given rise to an expectation that works to the garden would be carried out, only for these hopes to be dashed. The landlord has neither explained or apologised for this, missing an opportunity to do so as part of the complaints process and its formal responses to the complaint.
  8. In terms of the landlord’s complaints handling, it responded within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its complaints policy and procedure at stage one, with its ‘quick resolution’ response and response in respect of the escalation request being slightly outside of target timeframes. The landlord is entitled to take longer to respond to a complaint or escalation request where required, but it should make the complainant aware that a response may take longer than anticipated which it did not do in this case. It also missed a further opportunity to apologise for these delays in its formal responses to the complaint. 
  9. Whilst this Service has highlighted areas for improvement by the landlord in this case (and made Recommendations in that regard below) these are not so serious as to constitute a failure in service or maladministration. As a result, the landlord is not obliged to undertake any substantive actions or offer redress in respect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was not obliged to level the garden, as this would amount to an improvement rather than a repair. It is required to carry out a repair within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law, but no defect was identified.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. carry out a lessons learned exercise in respect of the findings in this report relating to expectation management and missed opportunities in its complaints handling.
    2. send the resident flowers as an apology and recognition of the above.