Plus Dane Housing Limited (202215069)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215069

Plus Dane Housing Limited

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. The standard of the garden maintenance.
2. The conduct of the landlord’s gardeners.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy began on 5 September 2016. The property is on a sheltered housing scheme within communal grounds. The resident is in a wheelchair.
The terms of the tenancy state that if the resident receives services as part of the tenancy, then she must pay the weekly charge as well as the rent. The resident has the right to 1 months written notice of any change in the service charge.

Summary of events

On 17 May 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said she was unhappy with the length of the grass as it prevented her using the garden in her wheelchair. She asked that the grass be cut more often, or the landlord refund her the service charge for this as she is not able to use it. She also queried why she has to pay service charges for the maintenance of the communal area as she was told at the start of her tenancy that this would be free. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 May 2022.
On 1 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It explained that the service charge was for 20 visits per year. 2 visits per month between March and October and 1 visit per month between November and February. The grass would be cut during 10 of the visits and the team would litter pick, weed, trim shrubbery and hedges during the other visits. Weather allowing it would cut the grass approximately every 3.3 weeks, but this is weather dependent and due to this it could not cut the grass to any specific schedule.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said:
1. It had completed 10 cuts last year during the summer period however fewer cuts were completed during the winter period. It explained that sometimes delays can occur due to weather. For this reason, its service agreement allows a tolerance of maintaining the grass between 1 and 6 inches.
2. It was slightly behind schedule this season because two members of the team had covid and were asked to isolate. It had however arranged additional resource and was hopeful that it would fulfil the number of cuts required.
3. It was satisfied that it had maintained the gardens in line with the expected service level.
The resident responded the next day requesting the matter be escalated to stage 2. She said:
1. She had made the complaint because the grass was 17 inches high and a health and safety hazard. She was unable to use the garden as she was a wheelchair user, but also other residents had fallen over because it was overgrown.
2. Her wheelchair had a ground clearance of 35mm so a week after a grass cut, she was unable to safely use the garden. She was assured when she signed the tenancy that the grass would be maintained at a very short height, and she would not have to pay for gardening as it was the landlord’s responsibility. The lack of outdoor space was affecting her mental health.
3. Her and other residents had never seen any evidence of litter picking, leaf collecting, weeding and general maintenance. A leaf blower was used to remove the cut grass and it was blown onto communal paths and into resident’s properties.
4. The gardeners were intimidating residents. Residents were scared to maintain their garden in between visits as if they do the gardeners miss their garden off completely.
5. She would like an acceptable schedule to be put in place. Attention should be given to weeds on dropped curbs as in the past these had wrapped around the wheels of her wheelchair and caused mechanical problems.
6. If this was not possible the resident would request that her garden is paved, or her rent reduced accordingly as she would not be able to use the outdoor space.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. it apologised that it had not acknowledged her complaint within its 5-day timescale.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said:
1. There were no current commitments regarding length of the grass at any time although it appreciated that its stage 1 response suggested otherwise. It apologised for the confusion.
2. The charge was £5.95 per week for general services which include ground maintenance. It had carried out duties including leaf collection, shrub pruning and hedge cutting as agreed.
3. It had not received any complaints about the behaviour of its gardeners. It would need examples of the incidents along with relevant dates so that it could investigate the matter further.
4. It did not uphold the complaint because its grass cutting service was ongoing and while there had been delays due to staff availability it was confident that the 10 scheduled cuts would take place within the allotted time frame.
5. The winter schedule included litter picking, leaf collection and general maintenance and would continue in the future.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she considered it failed to resolve the issues in particular that she was still unable to access the communal garden.

Assessment and findings

The standard of the garden maintenance.

This service acknowledges that the resident states within her complaint that she was advised when she signed the tenancy in 2016 that the grass would be maintained at a very short height and that she would not have to pay for gardening. The grounds maintenance became chargeable in April 2020 following a service charge review in 2019.
However, this Service considers it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised her concerns in respect of these matters sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were “live.” Given the passage of time, and the impact this would have on obtaining appropriate evidence. This service has decided that it will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports from May 2022 when she first raised her complaint. It will not consider the historic issues relating to 2016, 2019 and 2020.
The landlord’s service charge policy states that the service charges paid will be dependent on where residents live and what services are provided. Sheltered schemes will, by their nature have more services than general needs accommodation and services charged can include grounds maintenance.
The landlord did address the gardening issues within its complaint responses. It explained the programme of works and what would be expected within a 12-month period. It considered that it had delivered the grounds maintenance in accordance with its service delivery aside from a few minimal delays due to absences from covid.
The landlord however failed to address weeding to the drop curb despite the resident highlighting a health and safety concern. It also failed to address the information that the other residents had tripped due to the length of the grass. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether a consultation with the residents was appropriate on the usability and accessibility of the gardens. Its failure to consider the health and safety issues was a failing.
Furthermore, the landlord should have explained how it monitors the ground maintenance to ensure that issues raised by the resident are avoided. The resident had expressed concerns that the works were not being done and provided pictures showing the length of the grass. To reassure the resident and avoid further issues arising the landlord should write to the resident to confirm how it monitors the grounds maintenance works. An order has been made in respect of this below.
The landlord failed to consider the vulnerability of the resident. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The landlord was told by the resident that due to the fact that she was in a wheelchair she could not access the communal garden. She also raised health and safety concerns. Furthermore, she explained that the inability to access outside was having an impact on her mental health. The Equality Act 2010 states that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who do not have a disability.
The landlord’s failure to show it had considered reasonable adjustments to minimise the disadvantage to the resident amounts to maladministration. It also fails to foster a good landlord and tenant relationship. An order has been made below to ensure that the landlord reaches out to the resident to enquire whether reasonable adjustments can be made to enable her to be able to access the garden. An order has also been made for compensation which considers the impact on the resident including the time effort and trouble the resident has had to go to escalate the matter.

The conduct of the landlord’s gardeners.

The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the landlord’s gardener’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord’s response therefore that it would require details or examples of specific incidents to enable it to investigate was not unreasonable. It also considered whether it had received any other complaints historically which it had not. However, given it was a sheltered scheme with vulnerable residents it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have spoken to the resident rather than just correspond in wiring stating it required dates and times of incidents. Discussing the issues with the resident would have showed that it had taken the issues raised seriously. It would have also given the resident an opportunity to explain the situation fully before it determined whether there was sufficient information for it to investigate. This Service has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s gardener’s conduct. It failed to show that it had done all it could to investigate the issues raised.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two stage complaints process with formal responses required:
1. At stage one – acknowledge within 5 working days and respond 10 working days.
2. At stage two – respond within 20 working days of the complaint escalation.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 16 working days which was slightly outside of its own policies timescales. It then took the landlord 41 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 escalation which again was outside its own policy timescales. The landlord did update the resident and apologise for its delay but not until 25 days after her escalation which was a failing albeit of a small duration. Furthermore, the landlord did not address its own delays within its stage 2 complaint response which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in particular the health and safety issues. It also failed to explain within its response how it monitored its gardening services to re-assure the resident that it was doing all it could to ensure its gardening service met the relevant standard. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the concerns raised by the resident about the standard of the garden maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of the landlord’s gardeners.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to consider whether reasonable adjustments could be made in accordance with its duty under the Equality Act 2010. The resident had explained the impact on herself and other residents, but the landlord failed to consider this and show it had done all it could to try to resolve the issues.
The landlord’s response to the issues raised about the behaviour of its gardeners was insufficient. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and that it was a sheltered scheme it should have contacted the resident to at least discuss the issues before determining it was unable to investigate.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its own timescales. It failed to address the health and safety issues raised by the resident. It also failed to explain in its response how it monitored the quality of its gardening service.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £450 for the impact caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of the garden maintenance.
  2. £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of the landlord’s gardeners.
  3. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord is ordered to do the following within 6 weeks:
1. Reach out to the resident to enquire whether reasonable adjustments can be made to enable the resident to access the outdoor space. A copy of the considerations, viability and conclusions should be shared with this Service also within 6 weeks.
2. Write to the resident to confirm how it will monitor its ground maintenance contract to ensure it meets the required service standard. A copy should be sent to this Service also within 6 weeks.
3. Carry out refresher training with its complaint handling staff to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website). Confirmation of this should be sent to this Service also within 6 weeks.