Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202116095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116095

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

29 July 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 the landlord’s response to resident reports of an unsafe garden and the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident mutually exchanged into the property, a terraced house, under an assured tenancy, in 2014. The landlord has not commented on any vulnerabilities. The landlord says that previous complaints included issues with the front garden, but no mention was made of the rear garden.
3. The resident’s young son tripped in the garden in October 2019. A complaint made on 8 May 2020 said the garden was uneven and full of rubbish. Some repair work was done by the landlord, and the resident closed the complaint. The resident complained again 14 August 2020 when she had also tripped in the garden. She said that the repairs were incomplete, and the landlord had exceeded the stated timeframes. 
4. The resident added further issues to the complaint and said she would not close it until all were resolved. There is some disagreement between the landlord and resident about what work should be done. The landlord says a complaint response was sent 16 April 2021. Further repair work was done, the landlord said the resident was happy with the work but wanted further repairs to close the complaint. The landlord was not prepared to do this as the original complaint issues had been resolved.
5. A stage two response sent on 12 October 2021 listed the work done and said the resident was unhappy with the £650 compensation for loss of amenity previously given. The resident seeks £3,000 compensation for the delay in the repair, the distress experienced and for her son injuring himself due to the steep drop in the garden level. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. The resident has stated that the condition of the rear garden caused her and her son injuries. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments; but must clarify that it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine whether the landlord was responsible for any injuries sustained. In the Ombudsman’s view, complaints relating to liability for personal injury would instead be a matter for the courts. As per paragraph 39 9(i) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters where it is considered quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she will need to seek independent legal advice.
7. Additionally, while the resident advises that the landlord had been aware of safety issues with the uneven ground in the rear garden since 2017, this Service has seen no evidence of this and it does not appear that the resident raised this matter as a complaint at this time. This Service is therefore unable to investigate matters as far back as this. Under paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme, it explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period – which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As such, this investigation has only considered the action the landlord took to respond to the concerns raised by the resident in 2020 and the events that occurred up to six months prior to this time.

Assessment

8. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy (June 2021) says at section 4.2.2 that ‘responsive repairs’ including boundary and fencing issues, will be completed in 28 days. Section 4.3.1 says emergency repairs will be attended the same day/within 24 hrs. In terms of compensation, section 4.19.1 says that in certain circumstances the landlord will compensate for loss of rooms or facilities as a result of a failure in its service.
9. In this instance, the resident had raised the issue of the rear garden after her son’s fall and some work was undertaken by the landlord. The resident raised a complaint in May 2020 when she said that the landlord had been aware of the issue since 2017. She closed the complaint when work was undertaken to make a gentler slope in the garden and to fit a seed mat. Quotes for a concrete slab and fencing were also being obtained at this time. The resident submitted a new complaint, however, on 14 August 2020 expressing dissatisfaction that the landlord had exceeded the time scales for the repair, asserting that it had been negligent, in breach of contract and had caused distress, anxiety and inconvenience.
10. Additional issues were raised later in the internal complaints process, namely a wasps’ nest and tree removal, a drain repair and a fence at the front of the property, which were not part of the complaint.
11. The stage one complaint response has not been provided to this Service. In its final response letter of 12 October 2021, the landlord reported that the resident had previously said she was satisfied with the work and accepted two payments totalling £650 for loss of amenity but later felt this was too low. This concurs with the resident’s communication with this Service, which agreed the repair work was complete, but that the resident wanted an apology and £3,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience and loss of use.
12. As confirmed by the resident, once the landlord was made aware of the repair required in the garden, it attended and raised a work order. The repair on the sloping bank did not take, and further inspections and work was required. The work initially raised in the resident’s complaint in August 2020, being the inadequate fencing around a higher level in the garden and broken concrete which the resident said had caused her to trip, was confirmed by the landlord as completed, after previous attempts had failed, by August 2021.
13. Whilst 12 months is over the landlord’s timescales for a repair, the payment of £650 is reasonable if considered alongside the Ombudsman’s guidance of calculating redress for considerable service failure, but where there is no permanent impact on the complainant. There is no tariff for compensation payments provided by the landlord, and information provided about the payment of compensation by the landlord differs from that online. However, it is clear that this would normally be paid only in exceptional circumstances, or when the resident has suffered financial loss, which has not been evidenced here.  
14. It is noted that the resident and her son vacated the property on two occasions. However, the repairs required in the garden were not such that would have prevented them from residing at the property. The inability to use the garden area to its full potential is an inconvenience, particularly during the lockdown period, but not equal to an issue within the property itself that restricts use of an essential room. The Ombudsman has taken this on board in considering the appropriateness of the landlord’s compensation award.
15. There was delay in the complaint responses, but the resident had stated she would not close the complaint until the work was finished. This slowed down the complaints process, and the landlord could have issued the responses pending the work being completed. A recommendation has subsequently been made to ensure that the landlord does this in future cases.
16. Overall, there were some delays while different approaches were tried by the landlord to the uneven landscaping, which may have taken longer than was acceptable, even allowing for Covid restrictions. However, the sum offered was reasonable to account for the landlord’s delay in completing works, its failure to be proactive, and to recognise the resident’s fear of using the garden space during the period it should have undertaken these repairs.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s response to resident reports of an unsafe garden and the level of compensation offered, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

18. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Remind staff to always follow the complaints process and not delay a complaint response until work is completed or because the resident says they wish it to remain open. This will allow the resident to proceed through the internal process and ultimately to the Ombudsman in a timely manner and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code.
    2. Standardise the information on its website and the compensation guide as the first says compensation may be paid in exceptional circumstances for service failure, and the latter that it will only be paid if the resident has suffered financial loss.