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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202102203)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102203

Guinness Housing Association Limited

1 June 2023

 

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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about garden drainage issues.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in 2009.
  2. The resident has experienced water flooding/pooling in an area of the garden since 2011, for which the information provided suggests the landlord installed standalone drainage (a soakaway). This was reportedly not effective however, and since 2018 the evidence shows that the landlord has continually sought to explore the connection of the resident’s drain to a neighbour’s:
    1. 2018: a works order was raised to clear a soakaway and replace this if unable to clear. The same year, the landlord was provided a quote for £4,800 in respect to connecting the resident’s drain and soakaway to his neighbours.
    2. 2019: the resident reported no works had been done, and a CCTV of the drains was carried out, which reported that the soakaway was not connected to anything.
    3. March 2020: the landlord informed the resident that contractors had been instructed to connect the drain and lay new garden turf over the disturbed area.
    4. August 2020: a works order was raised to connect the resident’s drain to the drain of a neighbour and a nearby car park.
  3. The information provided then advises that works were affected by the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was no progress until January 2021, when a job was raised following an inspection to sort out the drainage in the garden.
  4. From 22 February 2021, the resident then made multiple calls to the landlord to chase progress, which were logged as complaint calls. On 23 February 2021, it was noted that a formal complaint would be made if he did not receive a call-back. The resident called again on 26 February 2021 referring to a continued lack of call-back, and again on 3 March 2021 and 29 and 30 April 2021. The same month, the resident contacted this Service. On 21 July 2021, the resident called again about matters and referred to feeling he should raise a stage 2 complaint.
  5. In October 2021, the Ombudsman asked thelandlord to respond at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. The same month, it internally discussed the issue. It was noted that there had been a “fool hardy approach” to the issue and it should not have promised to do works without significant evidence that the property was impacted. It was noted that the garden was astroturfed which possibly exacerbated the problem.
  6. In November 2021, the resident noted that a surveyor was inspecting and this was the fourth time an inspection had taken place. In December 2021, the landlord carried out the inspection, which found that there was pooling in two areas of the garden and made some recommendations. The same month, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered the resident £700 compensation. It said it had made service changes and learning from its communication and delays. It said that the next steps were to get the garden drainage repaired and provide new turf.
  7. Between December 2021 and March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its stage 2 response in March 2022. It apologised to the resident and offered an additional £225 compensation. It said it would explore connecting the resident’s drain with his neighbour’s drain.
  8. In July 2022, the landlord internally discussed matters. It indicated that its obligations for the issue were actually limited. It said that it would be responsible for structural features such as walls and ensuring there were no health and safety issues, and it noted that there was no danger of flooding to the property itself. It said customers were responsible for garden. It noted that laying astroturf was like laying carpet (which held water), and the level of preparation prior to astroturf being laid could be exacerbating the issue. It said that as a gesture of goodwill, for the length of time and the customer being led to believe it would take action, it should carry out works to lay weed control membrane with pea gravel to allow free drainage. It is unclear whether these works were carried out or not.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden drainage issues

  1. This Service understands the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience in respect to the garden flooding, and we recognise how frustrating this must have been for him. This Service also notes the resident’s general dissatisfaction and understandable desire not to be out of pocket for repeated damage to astroturf that has occurred due to the flooding.
  2. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme, and Paragraph 42 (g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine whether the landlord is liable for the damage to the resident’s astroturf, but we can assess whether the landlord has fulfilled its obligations and responded reasonably.
  3. The information provided advises that an area of the garden is prone to flooding due to a combination of heavy rain and the nature of the garden. The landlord’s July 2022 email suggests its obligations for the garden are limited, which seems accurate. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s main obligations relate to structural elements such as the property and boundary walls. The landlord has responsibilities for the drainage serving the house, however the drain in the garden is not connected to this and is solely external. The resident does not pay specific rent for the garden. Therefore, while it is acknowledged that the flooding may affect the resident’s enjoyment of the garden, it is not evident that there has been a significant failing on the part of the landlord to meet its obligations for the garden, and the solutions that the landlord proposed in its July 2022 correspondence seem reasonable.
  4. Following the resident’s reports, the landlord and its contractors have repeatedly carried out inspections and made commitments to resolve the issue, without any progress over a lengthy period. It is positive that the landlord has sought to assist with the issue, but the resident will have clearly experienced frustration as a result of its handling of the issue. The landlord’s responses and significant compensation award of £925 in total show that it has acknowledged issues with its handling. This goes a long way to remedy matters, particularly given the finding above that it is not evident that there has been a significant failing on the part of the landlord to meet its obligations for the garden.
  5. However, both complaint responses committed to exploring connecting the resident’s garden drain to his neighbour’s, which were then not met. This repeated the pattern that the resident had experienced for the issue for a number of years. The landlord was clearly seeking to progress solutions related to the drains, however the evidence shows that previous investigations established that such a solution was always likely to be complex and costly. The landlord’s commitments also did not reflect October 2021 internal discussions about its obligations and concern that the astroturf possibly exacerbated the issue, which it is not evident were discussed with the resident. There is concern the landlord does not demonstrate it had learned lessons and was attempting anything different. This seems to have led to the landlord continuing to make what appear to have been unrealistic overcommitments, and continuing to mismanage the resident’s expectations.
  6. The landlord should have had a clearer approach; been clearer about its obligations in respect to the garden flooding; reviewed any advice and support that could be provided to the resident if it thought the astroturf exacerbated the issue; reviewed any advice and support it could provide to the resident generally about options that might minimise flooding in the garden; and reviewed its previous actions more, such as how helpful it was to have installed a soakaway/drain that did not drain water into a main drain (which was the subject of the subsequent works recommendations).
  7. Overall, while it is not evident that the landlord has failed in its obligations in respect to ensuring no flooding occurs in the garden, the resident will have clearly experienced frustration from repeated inspections and unfulfilled commitments for the issue over a lengthy period. The landlord’s responses and compensation of £925 went a long way to remedy matters, however the resident will have experienced further frustration when the complaints procedure repeated the pattern of making commitments to the resident without meeting these in a timely manner. This leads this Service to make a finding of service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden drainage issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The information provided advises that on 22 February 2021, the resident complained to the landlord, then on 23 February 2021 he called again, and a call note referred to logging a formal complaint if the resident did not have a call-back. On 26 February 2021, a further call note referred to a continued lack of call-back. However, the complaint continued to go unlogged, including after further calls on 3 March 2021 and 29 and 30 April 2021, as well as a call on 21 July 2021 where the resident referred to feeling that he should raise a stage 2 complaint. He had not received a recent stage 1 response at this point, so this was a further prompt to log the complaint at stage 1 to ensure it received a response and progressed through the complaints procedure in a timely manner. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until December 2021, 10 months later and only following our intervention.
  2. The landlord was positive to acknowledge in its stage 1 response that there were failings and to award compensation. However, the focus of the landlord’s responses was complaint handling in 2019 and 2020. It did not acknowledge that there had been multiple complaint calls from the resident and that a formal complaint should have been logged from 26 February 2021. The landlord should have considered learning and improvements to avoid the same issues occurring, as well as demonstrated that these issues were taken into account in the complaint handling portion of the compensation.
  3. The information provided then advises that the resident called the landlord to escalate his complaint on 13 December 2021, however it did not provide a stage 2 response until 15 March 2022, 3 months later, again following our intervention. The landlord was positive to acknowledge in its stage 2 response that there were service failings, apologise for this and award some compensation for communication and distress and inconvenience. However, it did not confirm any learning and action to avoid such delays in future, which is a concern given the landlord required our intervention to log complaints at both stage 1 and 2.
  4. The landlord’s responses, as noted above, made commitments about exploring connecting the resident’s garden drain to his neighbour’s which were then not met and remained outstanding in July 2022, 7 months after the stage 1 response. The landlord missed the opportunity the complaints procedure presented to review its obligations for the issue and manage the resident’s expectations in the course of the complaint procedure.
  5. Overall, the resident experienced lengthy delays in receiving responses to the complaint at both stages of the complaints procedure, totalling 13 months. The landlord should not require our intervention to log complaints at stage 1 or escalate them to stage 2. It did not take the opportunity the complaints procedure presented to review its obligations for the issue and manage the resident’s expectations. While the landlord apologised and awarded compensation for its complaint handling, it is not evident that it acknowledged all its failings or took appropriate steps to fully put things right in the course of the complaint procedure. This leads this Service to make a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden drainage issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £300. This comprises:
    1. £100 for the issues identified with its handling of the garden drainage issue.
    2. £200 for the issues identified with its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of this decision.
  3. The landlord to review the complaint handling in the case and to consider, and make, any service changes to ensure that staff/call staff log, escalate and respond to complaints in an appropriate and timely manner. As part of this, it should consider its staff training needs and ensure all relevant staff progress complaints in accordance with its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  4. The landlord to arrange for a review of the garden flooding issue by senior repairs staff and its contractors, and for a discussion between them and the resident, in order to consider the current status of the issue; the options available to resolve any ongoing issue; and the options it is willing to take. It should then set out the outcome in writing to the resident, and include any advice it can provide where applicable about any action he could take within his obligations to improve matters, such as any good practice in respect to astroturf.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 6 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the repairs handling in the case and review what learning it can take in respect to confirming its obligations for reported repairs and managing resident expectations.