North Kesteven District Council (202008668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008668

North Kesteven District Council

18 February 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs at the resident’s property, including damp issues and works to her garden.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding a boundary dispute affecting her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of a Local Authority and has resided in her property, a three-bedroom house, since August 2019. Landlord records indicate it is aware that the resident and her young daughter have health issues and certain vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s Repairs and Improvements in Your Home booklet outlines that it aims to resolve urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 20 days.
The landlord has a Discretionary Payments to Tenants Policy which states that discretionary payments can be made ‘to a tenant as a result of a failure in the service by us or a contractor’.

Scope of Investigation

This investigation notes that the resident has made several complaints to the landlord, although this investigation will only look at the two most recent ones which were brought to this Service and submitted by the resident in December 2020 and August 2021. While these complaints are technically separate and both received a final, Stage Two response from the landlord, this Service will address them within the same investigation as they both touch on repair issues raised by the resident and the landlord’s responses to them.

Summary of Events

On 22 August 2019, shortly after moving into the property, the resident reported a hole in the guttering at the real elevation of the house, which was causing water to leak into the property. Subsequent to this, landlord repair logs covering the period August 2019 to September 2021, show further entries including:
1. A report from the resident of suspected damp in her kitchen (25 September 2019).
2. An order raised for works including repairing ‘the hunching to the man-hole cover in the patio’ and to cut out a patch of concrete and ‘re-establish the slab to ensure water drains away from (the resident’s) house’ (15 October 2019).
3. A report from the resident that her overflow pipe was leaking (7 November 2019).
4. An order raised regarding ‘rendering and plastering repairs’ to the resident’s larder which was experiencing ‘salts due to (a) continued leak from gutter’. A further entry noted ‘as per previous order, relay concrete to rear’ (9 December 2019).
5. An order to ‘remove broken guttering’ and a rotten fascia board (10 March 2020).
6. An entry to request that a previous order – relating to concreting – be split into two and additional work to add an outlet and connect a gulley be raised (18 March 2020).
7. A further entry from the same date to ‘take up broken/uneven paths to rear of property and relay new slabs of concrete’. This order was then re-raised on 20 May 2020.
8. A report from an operative that ‘the concrete by the (resident’s) gate is uneven’ and an order raised to ‘cut back either side and re-concrete or infill as necessary’ (1 June 2020).
9. An order to ‘backfill the edges of the footpath with topsoil to a gradient of 1: 12, compact the soil and lay turf’ (10 August 2020).
On 14 August 2020, landlord records show it opened a complaint case after receiving an email from the resident about her garden and pathway. However, internal landlord correspondence indicates it did not send a response and instead closed the complaint ‘verbally’ after a meeting with the resident on 2 September 2020 and a ‘plan of action’ being agreed which ‘met completely with the needs of (the resident)’. The landlord noted that the ‘extent of works (had been) discussed and agreed’ and were due to be undertaken ‘in the next few weeks’. This Service has not seen further details of the plan of action or which works were agreed.
On 9 November 2020, the resident reported that there was damp in her bedroom. Landlord records show it raised an order to carry out an inspection and ‘carry out the necessary repairs as applicable’.

The resident contacted this Service on 11 November 2020 to advise that she had not received a response from the landlord following a complaint she had made about a boundary dispute. She advised that she was unhappy that there were delays in progressing the issue and that, as she had the Right to Buy on the property, she wanted the matter resolved. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day to request that it provide a response. The landlord responded on 18 November 2020 to confirm that it had contacted the resident and logged a complaint at Stage One of its complaint procedures. However, from the information available to this Service, it is unclear if the landlord provided a response to this complaint.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord’s Repairs Officer wrote to the resident in response to an email he had received from her regarding ‘works undertaken by (the landlord’s) contractor’. The Repairs Officer advised that:
1. The landlord was ‘aware of the area of damp in the pantry’, which was attributed to a leaking gutter on the resident’s roof. He stated that this was an ‘unreported repair from the previous tenancy’ which had caused ‘damage to the brickwork and water penetration through the brickwork’.
2. The landlord considered that ‘the repair to this area was diagnosed correctly’ and that, ‘combined with works to stop water pooling to the rear of the property’, the steps it had taken should prove effective. He further stated that he was ‘happy to re-visit’ the resident’s property and ‘inspect this area again to check for any further defects’.
3. Regarding damp in the resident’s bedroom, he noted that the issue appeared to be ‘caused by cold bridging from a localised lack of insulation in the roof space rather than from a leak’. He advised that the landlord had inspected photos taken its contractors and was satisfied ‘this will provide a solution’ (although the exact actions taken were not specified). The Repairs Officer clarified that the landlord believed the ‘overall condition of the roofing felt (was) acceptable for the property’.
The resident replied to the landlord’s Repairs Officer the same day to advise that she was unhappy with his response and would like her concerns to be raised as an official complaint. In particular, she raised concerns regarding the condition of her roof and guttering and that a repair job relating to ‘pointing up’ around the southeast wall of her property had not been raised as the landlord had said it would. The landlord replied the following day to advise that it would raise the matter as an official complaint but that it was still happy to visit the property in the New Year to ‘check any outstanding issues’.
In the meantime, the resident submitted an online complaint form later on 23 December 2020 in which she stated that the landlord had ‘not…done the repairs required’ and that this had caused damp in her house. She requested that the landlord ‘put the issues right’ and highlighted that her daughter was partially blind and had had cancer.
The resident also submitted a further, more detailed online complaint the following day. In her submission the resident advised that she was complaining about the landlord’s contractor. In particular, she raised the fact that she had experienced unresolved damp issues in her pantry for over a year and now had damp in one of her bedrooms. The resident stated that this was caused by incomplete repairs to her guttering and roof and she enclosed photographs in support of her complaint.
On 5 January 2021, the landlord provided a complaint response to the resident. It stated it was ‘sorry that (she was) experiencing problems with your property’ and noted it had discussed the ‘issues raised’ with its Repairs Officer who would be ‘arranging to visit in the near future to re-inspect these areas and discuss any other concerns you may have regarding your property’.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with an update after it had met with ‘a wider managerial team to discuss the matters (she had) raised with us’ and advised that its email would outline and address those issues:
1. Regarding reported damp issues, the landlord enclosed the Stage One response issued on 5 January 2021, which it stated ‘addresses the damp that you have raised as a concern’.
2. The landlord noted that the resident contacted it in October 2020 to raise concerns over a boundary issue at her property although her correspondence was recorded as a ‘Request for Service’. After the issue was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, the landlord advised a complaint had been logged in November 2020 and a response had been sent on 8 December 2020 (this Service has not seen a copy of this). It advised the complaint response had concluded the ‘fence between yours and your neighbour’s property was encroaching into your garden’. It advised it had contacted the neighbour ‘to make them aware of this’ and it had made a request for the boundary to be ‘reinstated as detailed on the plans from when their property was purchased’.
3. The landlord apologised that it had not provided a response to correspondence from the resident on 4 January 2021 in which she asked for an update and advised this was due to staff ‘returning to work from Christmas and New Year leave’ and further lockdown conditions imposed by the Government due to the coronavirus. It advised that ‘when it was safe to do so’ it would attend the resident’s property to establish what work was required to ‘allow the fence to be reinstated to the original boundary line’.
4. Addressing concerns the resident had raised regarding her path and garden, the landlord noted it had received a formal complaint in August 2020 although it had not sent any formal response as two members of staff had carried out a visit to assess the issue and discuss the matter with her directly. It noted it had agreed to ‘fix the path by laying new top soil to the level the area out’ but that the resident remained dissatisfied and believed that a trip hazard still existed in the garden, which was of particular concern for her daughter. It advised that it would now carry out a ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS) assessment at the property at the earliest opportunity.
5. The landlord finally advised that it was treating the resident’s concerns as a service request rather than a formal complaint ‘to allow the service to try and resolve the matter directly’.
On 27 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would carry out an HHSRS survey of the garden areas of her property on 1 February 2021.
The resident made a further report regarding damp issues on 4 February 2021, noting that her front bedroom was affected and had become ‘very severe’ with ‘bigger patches’ forming.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 February 2021 and enclosed a copy of its HHSRS survey. It clarified that no Category 1 health and safety hazards had been identified during the assessment but that, following recommendations to carry out other works, it planned the following actions, which its repair records show that it had already raised on 18 February 2021:
1. It would replace a raised and damaged manhole cover (‘manhole 1’) and undertake ‘any required repairs to the metal surround…to ensure a level finish with the surrounding concrete yard’.
2. In respect of the concrete yard, the landlord advised it would ‘repair patched concrete joints (up to 15mm raised trip risk) adjacent to the side access gate’ along with further repairs to concrete joints perpendicular and parallel to the property.
3. It would repair ‘cracked concrete between the outbuilding and manhole 1’.
4. It would also install grab rails adjacent to both the front and rear entrance doors.
5. Its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a convenient time to carry out the works but it aimed to have them all completed by 10 March 2021.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s email the same day and raised concerns about previous work that had been carried out to her concrete paths. She also requested an update on the work that was due to be carried out to the boundary fence between her property and her neighbour’s property, noting that she understood this was due to have taken place in January 2021.
The landlord provided a further response two days later. It acknowledged that ‘work was carried out to your garden previously’ and that it was ‘sorry if that does not meet your expectations’ but that the work met its requirements as a landlord. It further stated that it was satisfied the works recommended by the HHSRS assessment ‘would also be sufficient’. Regarding the boundary fence, it advised that its Repairs Officer ‘will discuss (this) with you when he makes contact’. Finally, the landlord offered to escalate the complaint to Stage Two of its procedures which the resident subsequently requested that it did.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord raised an order to ‘re-align gutter to front elevation and allow for one additional downpipe with soak-away’, ‘remove lower (roof) tiles and replace felt to full length of elevation’ and ‘insert felt trays lapped into gutter’.
The landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response on 16 March 2021. It noted the resident’s complaint regarded ‘the (property) boundary, damp and mould and the garden’ at the resident’s property.
1. Regarding the boundary fence, the landlord apologised that the matter was not being resolved ‘as quickly as you would like’ but advised that the ‘process in regaining the land is one that may take more time, with legal processes that need to be followed’. It advised that it was continuing to pursue the matter and ‘will inform you as soon as it has come to a close’, after which point it would ‘schedule any necessary work to the boundary fence’.
2. Addressing her concerns regarding damp and mould, the landlord advised that it was ‘continuing to work to resolve this issue’ but that ‘the origin of the damp may be caused by several factors, which we have continued to mitigate’. It advised that it had asked the resident to monitor the situation if it has not been resolved but apologised if she felt that its responses had not ‘always been done in a timely manner’.
3. It advised that ‘work to the roof and guttering at the front of the property, along with repointing on the gable end’ had been raised with its contractor and ‘will be inspected and/or completed within 20 working days’, along with ‘further investigation into the damp in the larder area’. It advised that its Repairs Officer would be able to attend as work progresses to ‘ensure it is completed to an acceptable standard’.
4. In relation to ‘the handling of outstanding works to the garden path’, the landlord advised that the work had been ‘discussed and agreed with you and again has been raised with (our contractors), with a view to inspect and/or complete works within 20 working days’. It noted that there may remain a ‘difference of opinion’ between the works it deemed adequate and those desired by the resident but reiterated that it was ‘comfortable and confident’ that the agreed work was ‘fully acceptable…and meets the standards required’.
5. Regarding its ‘communication in relation to the outstanding works’ the landlord stated that, despite the resident having communication with several officers, it had responded to emails it had received and its officers had ‘made appointments and visited your property to discuss concerns you have raised’. It stated that it had also raised repair orders via its contractors ‘where this has been agreed’. It offered an apology if the resident felt that ‘the time taken to arrange and facilitate these appointments and works do not meet your expectations’. However, the landlord did acknowledge that the resident had not been sent a formal Stage One complaint response following her initial complaint ‘in relation to then garden works’. It apologised for this and noted that it would remind the relevant staff that, despite a visit taking place to deal with the matter informally, a proper response should still have been issued to the resident.
On 9 April 2021, the resident requested an update regarding the boundary issue between her and her neighbour’s properties. The landlord responded a week later and advised it had been unsuccessful in resolving the issue with the neighbour and ‘will now follow the appropriate legal process to ensure the boundary is repositioned’. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and ‘desire to have this resolved’ but stated it hoped she understood why there had not been ’immediate action’.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 May 2021 to chase up the progress of her repairs, including the replacement of the manhole cover, pointing work and a roof repair, noting that ‘another damp patch’ was now forming.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord raised a further order to renew the manhole cover in the resident’s garden, noting it was ‘not done on original order’.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 June 2021 to ask for an update regarding the ongoing boundary dispute. The landlord responded the following day to advise that, following its last update in April 2021, it had now begun legal proceedings and was hopeful that ‘the matter will be concluded including reinstatement work by the end of July’.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 1 August 2021 about the work its contractors were ‘supposed to have carried out’ on her guttering and that, while operatives had attended, the work had not been completed properly. She also advised that she was still waiting for the manhole cover in her garden to be replaced and for pointing to be completed. She stated that this had been ‘marked up’ by the landlord’s Repairs Officer on 28 May 2021 but it had still not been resolved, noting that the landlord had advised it was not possible due to a caravan being parked in the way.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for an update on the boundary issue. The landlord responded on 13 August 2021 to advise that it had no further update for her and the matter was still with its legal service.
The landlord provided a Stage One response on 19 August 2021. It stated that it was ‘sorry to hear that (the resident) was disappointed with the service provided by our contractor’ and advised the following:
1. An additional downpipe was now no longer needed. It noted that it understood the resident was now aware of this but apologised for any confusion caused.
2. Regarding works to the resident’s roof and guttering, it advised that the resident’s comments had been ‘noted’ and it would attend to carry out a ‘visual inspection for defects during the next period of heavy rain’.
3. In relation to outstanding works to a manhole cover and ‘making good to pointing and cleaning down etc’, it noted its contractors had contacted the resident on 22 June 2021 to confirm an appointment and enquire whether a caravan had been moved from the resident’s property so it would not be damaged during the works. The landlord advised it had received a report from its contractor following this call which alleged a gentleman had shouted at its operative and stated the caravan did not need to be moved. The contractor’s report alleged the gentleman continued to shout which led to the call being terminated. The landlord stated that, while it understood the resident was ‘unhappy and frustrated with the repairs service you have received’, neither it nor its contractors would ‘tolerate such behaviour’ and the job had therefore been cancelled. It confirmed that, if the resident wanted the works completed, she would need to contact its contractor to book a new repair appointment.
4. It further advised that its Repairs Officer would be in contact ‘in the near future’ to arrange ‘appropriate inspections to complete any outstanding works’
The resident responded the same day to advise she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted her complaint to be escalated to Stage Two. She advised that she was happy with the roof repairs but reiterated her concerns regarding the guttering and the fact that the manhole cover in her garden was still yet to be replaced. She advised that she had begun to feel she needed to ‘keep complaining to get a job done’.
The landlord raised a further order on 16 September 2021 to ‘fit new manhole cover to rear chamber’. It requested that its contractor contact its Repairs Officer who would then liaise with the resident to discuss possible dates.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord provided its Stage Two response to the resident. Within its reply, the landlord advised that, having reviewed previous correspondence and spoken with its repairs service, it was ‘satisfied that they are doing all they can to deliver the work that it needed and that (our contractor) is delivering to the standard we expect’.
The landlord’s response noted its Repairs Officer attended the resident’s property the previous day and had confirmed some repair work did remain outstanding, including ‘several very small areas of repointing; replacement of inspection chamber cover; making good to Aco drain; check and re-align gutter to front elevation’. The landlord noted it had been unable to complete the first two repairs due to being denied access by the resident’s partner ‘on a previous occasion’. It advised jobs had been raised for all works required and, while it acknowledged the resident was ‘dissatisfied’ with its contractor, it could see ‘no evidence’ they had not ‘fulfilled the role expected of them, to the standard (the landlord) requires’. It clarified it would appoint an alternative contractor and reiterated its offer for a member of its own staff to attend while the work was completed.
In correspondence with this Service, the landlord has advised that ‘all works were completed’ by its contractor as of 30 September 2021. It further advised that its Repairs Officer had contacted the resident on 27 October 2021, and she had confirmed that there were no further works outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property, including damp issues and works to her garden

From the landlord’s repair records, it is noted the resident raised repair issues including concerns over damp in her kitchen (in August 2019), and the landlord raised repair orders relating to concerns over her pathway and guttering as early as March 2020. While the landlord’s handling of these repairs sits outside this report’s scope of investigation and were addressed in a further complaint response which was not brought to this Service, they provide context to the resident’s later complaints regarding how repair issues have been handled by the landlord and its contractor.

There are concerns regarding the length of time taken by the landlord to complete identified works and the clarity of its repair records, which at times have meant that this Service has been unable to identify a clear chronology of events regarding how repair issues have been dealt with or resolved. While it is positive that the landlord generally responded promptly to repair reports raised by the resident, particularly via email correspondence from its Repairs Officer, there is a lack of clear information regarding when inspections took place, their outcomes, and often a lack of clear timeframes for when work was scheduled.
In her complaint of 23 and 24 December 2020, the resident raised concerns regarding a damp patch in her bedroom, which she believed was caused by a problem with her roof. Landlord records show that she reported this to the landlord on 9 November 2020. It raised an order to ‘inspect / investigate’ and carry out ‘the necessary repairs as applicable’. Although this entry was marked as being completed on 15 December 2020, this Service has not seen evidence to show when an inspection took place and the first repair order that seems related to the issue was not raised until March 2021, almost three months later. An email from the landlord’s Repairs Officer to the resident sent on 23 December 2020 noted the damp in the bedroom ‘appears to be caused by cold bridging from a localised lack of insulation in the roof space’ but did not make clear when this assessment was made, or when the ‘solution’ of installing additional insulation would take place. This is not appropriate and means that the landlord is not able to evidence whether it responded to the resident’s reports appropriately.
The resident made a further report in February 2021, advising the damp patch in her bedroom had increased in size but it is again not clear what action the landlord took following this further report. In an update email sent by the landlord on 12 January 2021, it referred to the Stage One response it sent a week earlier and advised that its reply ‘addresses the damp that you have raised’. However, it did not provide any further detail regarding the actions it had taken, and would be taking, other than noting its Repairs Officer visiting the property ‘in the near future’. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord missed an opportunity to outline the steps it had undertaken so far and to provide the resident with reassurance regarding how it intended to resolve the matter.
Furthermore, in its Stage Two complaint response sent on 16 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged the damp problem remained unresolved, but advised it was ‘continuing to work to resolve the issue’ and ‘the origin of the damp may be caused by several factors’ which it was ‘continuing to mitigate’. While its repair records indicate it had raised orders the previous day to ‘provide access to front elevation’ to re-align a gutter, add an additional downpipe, remove some lower roof tiles and replace ‘felt to full length of elevation’ and insert felt trays in gutter, there is no indication as to what steps the landlord had taken since the resident’s original report or any further information regarding what other factors mayhave been causing the damp. This is not appropriate and there is insufficient evidence from the landlord’s records that it responded reasonably.
It had also not responded within its repair targets, given that the resident’s initial report was made in November 2020. Its Stage Two response advised that it was satisfied the work raised was appropriate. However, it advised the resident that the works had been passed to its contractor ‘to inspect and/or complete…within 20 working days’. As the landlord had confirmed the works had been agreed (and its repair logs indicate they had already been raised) it is unclear why a further inspection would be required, which may have caused the resident confusion. Its repair targets, which had already been missed, also state that repairs should be completed within 20 days, rather than 20 working days. The landlord therefore did not act reasonably by giving the resident a vague timeframe which was not in accordance with its repair policies.
It is noted that, having raised an order for the work referred to above on 15 March 2021, there are no further details regarding how that work progressed until an email from the Repairs Officer sent on 3 June 2021 in response to a chase up enquiry from the resident. In his response, he clarified the work orders had been passed to the landlord’s contractor (and advised that the additional downpipe ordered was no longer required) and indicated that the scaffolding was due to be erected the following week. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that explains why there was a three month delay between the work being raised and the works being scheduled for June 2021. While this Service appreciates that orders which require scaffolding or additional access can be harder to arrange, there is no evidence to indicate that this was any unavoidable delay.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident has advised that the damp problem in her bedroom remains unresolved and that she re-raised the issue in December 2021, but this has so far not been followed up by the landlord. Although this Service has not seen evidence of these exchanges, and the repair logs supplied by the landlord only concerned the period covered by the original complaint, it is of concern that the resident is still reporting the issue. A Recommendation has been made regarding this at the end of the report.
There also seems to have been a considerable delay relating to the replacement of a manhole cover in the resident’s garden. From the evidence available, the landlord initially acted appropriately when responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of her pathway and concern over work that had been carried out previously. It clarified that it was satisfied that the work completed earlier was of an acceptable standard and while this Service notes the resident’s concerns regarding this, including her concerns regarding risk posed to her daughter, there is no evidence that the landlord’s position was unreasonable. The landlord also acted proactively when it agreed to commission a Housing Health and Safety Rating System survey of the resident’s garden, and this was carried out promptly on 1 February 2021. Following completion of the survey, the landlord noted that no Category One hazards had been identified. However, it agreed to act on recommendations made in the survey and in February 2021 it advised the resident that it would carry out works to replace a manhole cover and other repairs to ensure a level finish, along with further patching repairs to concrete joints, repairing cracked concrete and installing grab rails. It advised the resident that the work would be completed by 10 March 2021. These were reasonable and proactive steps for the landlord to take and it was appropriate that it gave the resident a firm timeframe for when the work would be completed.
However, from the information available, it is evident that the works were not completed by 10 March 2021, and, regarding the replacement of the manhole cover, there was a significant delay in completing this, as records show the order was re-raised three months later in June 2021 as it was ‘missed’ previously. It is evident the resident was still chasing the repair in August 2021, some six months after the order was originally raised, and following that landlord repair logs show a further order was raised for the same job in September 2021. This is not appropriate and indicates a considerable delay, which would have caused the resident inconvenience and time and trouble in chasing the work.
While the landlord’s later Stage Two complaint response (sent in September 2021) clarified that the order had now been cancelled due to an alleged disagreement ‘on a previous occasion’ with the resident’s partner over a caravan parked on her property, this Service has not seen any records or evidence of when this incident took place or if the resident had been advised that the job was subsequently cancelled. While the landlord’s position that it and its contractors’ staff were entitled to be treated with respect is reasonable, and this Service appreciates that landlords cannot be held responsible if their operatives are unable to gain access, the one incident referred to by the landlord does not adequately explain the significant length of time take to complete the repair, which it had originally advised the resident would be resolved in March 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a boundary dispute affecting her property

It is important to note that the Ombudsman is not able make a determination on the boundary dispute within this investigation. However, what this investigation can consider is the landlord’s response to the concerns the resident raised. It is noted that, while the resident has raised the matter with the landlord and has reasonably made the point that the as yet unresolved boundary dispute has affected her plans to carry out work in her garden and, in the future, may affect any Right to Buy application, the dispute itself is between the landlord (as the owner of the property) and the neighbour.
From the information available, while on the face of things the issue appears fairly straightforward (the boundary fence between the resident’s property and the neighbour’s property appears to have been repositioned at some point and now slightly encroaches into the resident’s garden) the dispute itself is more complex as the neighbour maintains that the fence has not been moved since he purchased the property. This Service appreciates the landlord’s need to obtain detailed legal advice and follow the appropriate legal processes to resolve the issue. It is acknowledged that legal disputes such as these can also take a significant amount of time. This Service therefore appreciates the frustration the resident undoubtedly feels regarding the amount of time it is taking to resolve the issue which, as far as the Ombudsman is aware, still remains unresolved 18 months after her initial enquiry.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord largely acted reasonably with regards to how it attempted to progress and resolve the matter. From information seen by this Service, which we are not able to fully detail here due to third party data concerns, it acted appropriately by contacting the neighbour and requesting they allow the landlord to reposition the fence to its original boundary. The landlord has contacted the neighbour on several occasions, and it ultimately cannot be held responsible for the neighbour’s lack of cooperation. This Service has seen evidence the landlord attended the resident’s property to further assess the disputed boundary and reasonably sought further legal advice as to the next steps it can take. However, from the information available, it is not clear what the landlord’s current position is and whether the resident has been fully updated regarding this. An Order has therefore been made regarding this at the end of this report.
Regarding how the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries themselves, in her initial contact with this Service in November 2020, the resident advised that she had not received a response to her complaint regarding the ongoing boundary dispute affecting her property, which she had made the previous month. The complaint update email sent by the landlord on 12 January 2021 advised that it had logged her original enquiry as a ‘Request for Service’ rather than as a complaint and noted that it had initially provided a response outside of its complaint procedures. It further advised that it logged the issue formally as a complaint in November 2020 and provided a formal complaint response in December 2020 (under reference 647984) when it concluded that the neighbour’s fence was encroaching into the resident’s garden.
However, while the landlord gave a reasonable explanation for how it had responded so far, this Service has not seen the resident’s original enquiry, nor has it seen the responses the landlord referred to, both informal and formal, and it remains unclear what advice or updates it provided to the resident. This is not appropriate and means this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord’s responses were reasonable or whether it addressed the resident’s complaint adequately. It was also not appropriate that, within the responses provided, the landlord has not addressed the resident’s concerns with regards to any future Right to Buy application she may make. While internal correspondence seen by this investigation indicates the landlord acknowledged this is something it needed to consider, it has seemingly not discussed this with the resident or provided her with any relevant advice.
The landlord did act appropriately when, in its email of 12 January 2021, it apologised for a delay in replying to a request for an update, which she had sent on 4 January 2021. As the delay in replying was only short (a week) and there was no obvious detriment to the resident, an apology was a reasonable step from the landlord and appropriate redress in the circumstances.
It was also reasonable that, in its January 2021 response, the landlord provided further information regarding the boundary issue, advising it had contacted her neighbour and requested they reinstate it to the original boundary line by 31 December 2020. However, as this had not happened, it advised it would arrange to visit the resident’s property to ‘assess what work is required’ to reinstate the fence to the original boundary line. While the landlord advised that this would take place at ‘the earliest opportunity’, it would have been preferable for the landlord to give the resident a specific timeframe for this to happen, so as to manage her expectations and provide her with greater clarity and reassurance over how the matter would be progressed.
It is noted the resident had cause to chase the landlord over how the issue was progressing on further occasions (20 February, 9 April and 8 June 2021). While the landlord responded relatively promptly on each occasion, there is no evidence it had been proactive itself in providing the resident with updates on an issue that was clearly important to her and was yet to be resolved. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to provide the resident with reassurance that it was taking her concerns seriously. Although it was appropriate that, in its response to her enquiry in April 2021, it acknowledged the resident was ‘frustrated’ by the apparent lack of progress, by being more proactive and providing more regular updates, the landlord would also have saved the resident time and trouble in chasing it for further information.
It was also unfortunate that, in its later response to the resident in June 2021, it advised it hoped the ‘matter will be concluded including reinstatement works by the end July (2021)’. From the evidence available, as the landlord was already seeking further legal advice on the complex situation, it is not clear what it based this timeframe on, and this will have likely served to unfairly raise the resident’s expectations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property, including damp issues and works to her garden.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a boundary dispute affecting her property.

Reasons

There were significant delays in completing repairs following the resident’s reports regarding damp in her bedroom and issues with her concrete path, particularly the replacement of a manhole cover. While there is evidence that the landlord did carry out inspections and raise orders relating to the work, its repair records do not indicate why there were lengthy periods between works being raised and carried out. In the case of the replacement manhole cover, the order was originally raised in February 2021 and not completed until October 2021, having been re-raised twice. This was not acceptable and, other than one incident cited by the landlord, there is no indication as to why the work was not completed for such a long period.
The delays in solving the damp problem in the resident’s bedroom would also have caused the resident detriment by impacting on her day to day living and enjoyment of the property, particularly given she had made the landlord aware of the health issues which affected her daughter.
In its complaint responses the landlord also did not appear to fully acknowledge the length of the delays to the repairs, or that it was not acting in accordance with its own stated targets for completing repairs. It also did not acknowledge the frustration this would have caused the resident, who was caused time and trouble in regularly chasing the landlord for updates. This was not appropriate and, given the length of time taken to resolve the damp issues and pathway repairs, the landlord should have considered making an offer of financial redress to ‘make it right’, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Regarding its handling of the resident’s concerns over the boundary dispute, this Service empathises with the resident and understands that she will be frustrated by the length of time that has passed without the issue being resolved while. However, from the information seen by this investigation, this is a complex legal matter which the landlord has reasonably attempted to progress.
However, the landlord could have been more proactive in keeping the resident informed on how the matter was progressing and she was caused time and trouble in chasing for updates. It also at times gave her timeframes for progress which it was unlikely to meet, causing her to have raised expectations, and it could have provided the resident with clearer information regarding its current position and the advice it had received from its legal services.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to, within four weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Pay the resident a total of £450 in compensation, consisting of:
  1. £400 to reflect the poor handling of reported repairs at the resident’s property.
  2. £50 to reflect the poor response to the resident’s concerns regarding the boundary dispute affecting her property.
2. Write to the resident to provide her with an update on its current position regarding the disputed boundary between her and her neighbour’s property and outline the steps it intends to take and a timeframe for those steps to be actioned. It should also provide this Service with a copy of this letter.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to arrange a time to reinspect the damp in her bedroom and, following the inspection, write to her with its findings. If any works are identified, it should provide her with a written plan of action, with specific timescales, and provide this Service with a copy.
The landlord should also consider reviewing its record keeping regarding repairs to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact.