Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited — case 202407926

Decision Case ID 202407926 Decision type Investigation Landlord Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 28 May 2026 Background The resident said he is physically disabled and has health problems. He received a Disabled Facilities Grant from his local council to fund works to his property, which included installing and surfacing a driveway. The landlord’s contractors installed the driveway in April 2022. In April 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about the standard of the driveway installation.

He said he was unhappy as weeds were coming through the centre of it. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s concerns about his driveway installation. The complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his driveway installation. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his driveway installation The landlord gave reasonable options for resolving the weed issue, in line with its policies.

The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord responded to resident’s complaint within its stage 1 and 2 policy timescales. It followed our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations We recommend the landlord contacts the resident and repeats its offer to resolve the weed problem on his driveway. This should include the actions set out in its complaint responses, to treat the weeds and apply a protective coating. If this is not effective, the landlord should offer to remove the affected section of the driveway, remove the weeds, and replace the surface. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this. We recommend that the landlord offers to help the resident to apply to its assisted gardening scheme.

Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 9 April 2024 The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of installations to his property. He said his driveway gates were not wide enough, and weeds were growing through the surface of the driveway. He also said there was not enough paving in his back garden. 12 April 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. 26 April 2024 The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.

It explained why it would not alter his gates and garden paving. It offered solutions to resolve the weeds coming through his driveway. 29 April 2024 The resident asked the landlord to withdraw his complaint about his driveway gates. He confirmed he wanted to escalate the other issues in his complaint to stage 2. 1 May 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. 20 May 2024 The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said it would work with the council to resolve his back garden paving issue.

The landlord repeated its offer to resolve the weed problem and confirmed it would not resurface all his driveway. It said the resident could apply to its gardening service for help with removing the weeds. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident confirmed his back garden paving complaint is now resolved and he does not want us to investigate this. He remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to his driveway complaint. He wants the landlord to excavate his whole driveway, lay a membrane, and resurface it.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his driveway installation Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s equipment and adaptations policy says it works in partnership with the local council to provide an adaptations service supported financially by Disabled Facilities Grants.

It says it is responsible for repairs to major and minor adaptations installed under the policy. The landlord said the council’s adaptations team told it the resident had raised concerns to them about his driveway installation. The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s driveway within the 10-working day timescale outlined in its repairs policy. During the inspection on 9 April 2024 the landlord found 2 dandelion weeds at the edge, and a ‘mare’s tail’ weed broken through the centre of the resident’s driveway.

The landlord told the resident it would not resurface the driveway as he had requested. It said mare’s tail weed was difficult to get rid of and can grow through surfaces. It advised the resident to kill the weed using weed spray and later suggested it could treat them as a “one off”. The landlord also suggested the resident could apply to its assisted gardening scheme, and if he was accepted they would treat the weeds approximately 6 times a year. We found a service failure in the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s driveway concerns.

Although the landlord offered to treat the weeds, it failed to consider more permanent solutions to resolve the issue. This includes repairing the broken section of the driveway if the treatment was ineffective. This was not in line with repairs policy. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 and 10 April 2024. He said he was initially happy with the driveway installation but was unhappy now because weeds had come through within 2 years. He said the landlord’s contractors should have placed a membrane under the surface before laying it which he believed would stop weeds coming through.

The landlord contacted its contractors before responding to the resident’s complaint. They said they do not use membrane as standard. They said if they had installed membrane, it was unlikely to have stopped mare’s tail weed from going through the surface. The contractors suggested the landlord could dig a hole within the driveway and remove the weed. In its first response to the resident’s complaint the landlord explained that membrane would unlikely have stopped the weed from coming through the driveway.

It offered to regularly treat the weed to kill it. The landlord said if this did not work it would excavate one square foot of the surface, remove the weed, and resurface the removed section. The landlord said the affected area was around 2 inches so it would not excavate, lay membrane and surface the whole driveway as this was not a necessary or viable option. The landlord expanded on why it would not excavate the resident’s whole driveway in its final complaint response. It said the cost it would incur was not a proportionate course of action and did not represent the best use of resources.

It repeated its advice that the resident could apply for ongoing support from its assisted gardening scheme if he was unable to remove weeds himself. In a further communication, it offered to help the resident to apply. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his driveway installation. The landlord gave reasonable explanations why it would not excavate and resurface the driveway. It offered reasonable alternative solutions to resolve the issue in its complaint responses.

This included treating the weeds, plus other “organic matter” that had grown. It also offered to place a coating over the driveway to stop weeds from reoccurring. It said if this was unsuccessful it said it could dig a hole in the driveway, remove the weed and relay the section of the driveway. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to offer to resolve the weed problem from his driveway. This should include the actions set out in its complaint responses, to treat the weeds and apply a protective coating.

If this is not effective the landlord should offer to remove the affected section of the driveway, remove the weeds and replace the surface. We also recommend the landlord offers to support the resident with applying to its assisted gardening scheme, as per its complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord following our recommendations. Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint.

It says it will record and acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint definition and response times are in line with the Code. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timeframe. Within this response on 26 April 2024, it acknowledged the resident remained unhappy. The resident confirmed this on 29 April 2024.

The landlord acknowledged his request for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 within its policy timeframe on 1 May 2024. It then responded to his stage 2 complaint within its policy timescales on 20 May 2024. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord followed its policy timescales when it responded to the resident’s complaint. Learning The landlord showed good practice in its handling of the resident’s complaint as its responses were timely, in line with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord demonstrated it kept records of its interactions with the resident when managing the complaint, in line with the Code. Communication The landlord showed good practice in its communication with the resident as it responded to the resident’s concerns promptly and in line with the Code.