Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Eastlight Community Homes (202000056)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000056

Eastlight Community Homes

18 December 2020


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 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 concerns about the deterioration of the garden at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord that started in 2017. The property was a new build when the resident moved in. It is a two‑bedroom house with a private garden.
  2. In relation to the garden, the tenancy agreement says the resident shall keep the gardens properly cultivated and in a tidy condition.
  3. All new homes in the UK are covered by a 10-year home warranty and insurance guarantee. This provides comprehensive protection against a range of eventualities, including problems with the home’s construction. The warranty is taken out and paid for by the house builder with one of the approved providers. This Service understands that the landlord’s properties are covered by a warranty issued by the National Housebuilding Council (the NHBC)
  4. The NHBC publish the acceptable technical requirements, performance standards and guidance for the design and construction of new homes. The 2017 standards for garden areas included:
  • old foundations, concrete bases and similar obstructions within 300mm of the finished ground surface removed;
  • appropriate action, such as rotavating, undertaken to restore the drainage characteristics of soil that has been compacted during construction;
  • a minimum thickness of 100mm topsoil provided; and
  • construction rubbish and debris should be removed from the garden and other areas around the home.
  1. The NHBC website says that when a tenant has a problem with their home, they should report it to their landlord in the first instance.
  2. The landlord has a three-stage complaint procedure. The landlord may decide not to escalate a complaint to stage three if it considers that all of the points raised have been responded to fully and that no further investigation or action is appropriate.

Summary of events

  1. On 28 February 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about his rear garden. He said that the soil had sunk “drastically” causing uneven ground and there were also gaps under the gravel boards around the garden. The resident said this had caused the grass to die which he had previously maintained; rainwater was pooling on top of the soil; and there was a hollow into which water sinks within seconds “with a whirling motion”. He questioned if the ground was stable and said he no longer allowed his children to use the garden due to safety fears.
  2. On 7 March 2020 the landlord asked its surveyor to look into this matter.
  3. On 16 March 2020 the surveyor wrote to the resident following his visit to the property on 11 March 2020. This was the initial complaint response under the landlord’s formal complaint procedures (paragraph 7). He said he had found several areas of settlement of the soil, as might be expected in a property of that age. He added he could not see any issues that would be classed as “structural” or requiring further investigation at that time. The surveyor said that the grass had nearly all died off, and he could see no obvious reason for that but would assume it was due to the soil becoming waterlogged during the recent wet weather. The surveyor said he had offered for the landlord to top up areas of settlement with fresh soil and also to fill in holes left by removed rotary washing line bases with soil. He noted, however, that as the resident had declined this offer, that work would not proceed and no action would therefore be carried out to the garden.
  4. On 17 March 2020 the resident responded to the surveyor questioning his view that the problems in the garden were caused by settlement.
  5. On 18 March 2020 the surveyor responded. He said he was not sure when the settlement had occurred as it had not been monitored or measured but had come to the conclusion that it was settlement based on what he had seen. He said it was his opinion that the grass had died off to the waterlogging and he had not seen any evidence of a hole where water was draining in a “spiraling motion”.
  6. Also on 18 March 2020, the resident asked the landlord to review his complaint.
  7. On 27 March 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response under its formal complaints procedure. It said it had reviewed the feedback from the surveyor’s visit and the photos the resident had provided and provided details from the surveyor (paragraph 10). The landlord said that under the tenancy agreement, the maintenance of the garden was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord explained how the resident could ask for a further review of the complaint.
  8. On 28 March 2020 the resident told the landlord that he had had a landscape gardener look at the garden and they had said that the grass had died due to poor soil/soil contamination and that there was a lack of drainage. He said that the landlord was responsible for that.
  9. On 31 March 2020 the landlord asked the resident how he would like his complaint to be resolved. He responded the same day saying he believed the drop in soil levels needed to be investigated further as this had happened within the last six months, not in the first couple of years after the property had been built. He said the offer of putting more soil on top would not resolve the matter.
  10. On 2 April 2020 the landlord responded to the resident saying it recognised his concern related to a new–build property and the likelihood was that the concerns he had raised were a result of the ground settling, something that was not uncommon with a new build property. The landlord explained that a qualified surveyor had investigated and it had proposed that the landlord take steps to resolve this matter; however, the resident had rejected that. The landlord added that, as such, it was not in position to make improvements to the garden or take the complaint further. It signposted him to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. While the resident is responsible for keeping the garden cultivated and in a tidy condition, it was appropriate that he raised concerns about the garden with the landlord given his concern that there might be an underlying problem with it. 
  2. The landlord took appropriate action by asking an expert, its surveyor, to inspect the resident’s garden and report back to it about any defects identified. His view was that the garden had been waterlogged following a spell of bad weather and that excess water had caused the grass to die off. The surveyor also identified that there had been some settlement and offered for the landlord to take action by adding more soil to the garden to level it up.
  3. It is evident that the resident has concerns that the problem in the garden may be of a serious nature (paragraph 8); however, the landlord’s proposed action was a proportionate and appropriate response to his initial concerns. This Service has not identified a service failure in the landlord’s actions.
  4. If the resident agrees to the landlord adding more topsoil to the garden and this does not resolve the matter, then it would be reasonable for the landlord to investigate the issue further.
  5. At that stage, if the landlord believes the problems in the garden are a result of the new build technical specifications not being met, such as appropriate action not having been taken to restore the drainage characteristics of soil that had been compacted during construction (paragraph 5), then it would be open to it to raise such concerns with the NHBC.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the deterioration of the garden at the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate action to investigate the matter and suggested a way forward that might resolve the problems in the garden.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and offers to add more topsoil to the garden to see if that resolves the problems in line with the surveyor’s suggestion from March 2020. If that does not resolve matters, the landlord should investigate this issue further.