Broxtowe Borough Council (202222398)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222398

Broxtowe Borough Council

5 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 handling of:

1. Maintenance to a hedge in the resident’s back garden.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident, who is a secure tenant had the hedges in her back garden cut by the landlord in July 2022. Due to the lack of maintenance of the hedges, there were large gaps once it had been cut back. The resident was not satisfied with the job that had been completed, and expressed concerns that her grandchildren could escape the property through the large gaps in the hedges. In response to this, on 21 and 22 July 2022, the landlord agreed to install temporary chestnut fencing in the areas where gaps were present.
3. The resident was not satisfied with the temporary solution and requested several times for the landlord to visit the property. An operative assessed the property on 25 July 2022, and found the installation and work carried out was appropriate. However, the resident maintained her dissatisfaction and chased several times for another visit. An operative visited again on 10 October who suggested to the resident that a chicken wire fence could potentially be installed by the landlord.
4. The landlord’s final response to the complaint, dated 19 December 2022 confirmed that the gap in the hedge still maintained the boundary, and that after visiting the property and reviewing photos, the landlord was confident that there were no significant points of entry. As mentioned in its stage one response of 25 October 2022, the landlord maintained that it had acted beyond its obligations by installing the temporary fence. Additionally, in its final response, the landlord highlighted sections of the tenancy agreement that confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain dividing fences. It reiterated that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to install a fence, but confirmed that it would grant permission for the resident to install one should she want to do so.
5. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s responses, nor the time taken for the responses to be sent. She informed this Service that she wanted the landlord to install a permanent fence along the division of her property and her neighbour’s.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

6. Section 4.13 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident would “be responsible with any neighbour for the maintenance of any fencing between [the resident] and [the resident’s neighbour’s] garden(s)”.
7. Section 4.40 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident is “not to make any improvements to the property… the building and/or estate, except in the circumstances permitted by sections 97 to 99 of the Housing Act 1985, which is where [the resident has] first obtained [the landlord’s] written consent which [it] will not be unreasonably withheld and will be subject to any planning permission or any other permissions that may be needed”.

The landlord’s handling of maintenance to a hedge in the resident’s back garden

8. The resident raised two issues in particular with regard to the work on the hedge in the back garden. The issues were that the cutting of the hedge was done unprofessionally and in a particularly messy manner which left gaps, and that the resident wanted a permanent fence to be installed as the temporary fencing was not good enough.
9. With these issues having been brought to the landlord’s attention, the landlord had an obligation to assess the quality of the work to the hedge, and also to outline its obligations with regard to providing fencing for the resident.
10. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord attended the property to assess the quality of the work that had been carried out by trimming the hedge. The landlord advised that a professional in the field confirmed that there were large gaps due to the fact that the hedge had not been maintained, and two competing plants were growing to create the large overgrown hedge. It advised that once cut back, the gaps were unavoidable, but that the plants would grow back over time to fill in the gaps once again. It was also noted that the gaps did not affect the boundary of the garden, which remained clearly marked by the hedge.
11. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely upon the advice of professionals when determining whether the work was done to a professional standard. It offered a fair and reasonable explanation for the gaps in the hedge, and the perceived “mess” made of the work. Whilst the Ombudsman can understand the resident’s frustration about the appearance of the hedge, we have not seen any evidence from professionals to indicate that the landlord’s explanation was inaccurate or that the gaps in the hedge could have reasonably been avoided.
12. With regard to providing fencing, the landlord made clear in its final complaint response, what is obligations and responsibilities were. It provided the resident with the relevant paragraphs of the tenancy agreement to justify its reasoning for not providing a permanent fence. For clarity, it is stated in section 4.13 of the tenancy agreement that the resident would “be responsible with any neighbour for the maintenance of any fencing between [the resident] and [the resident’s neighbour’s] garden(s)”.
13. This is consistent with many tenancies in that the landlord is usually responsible for boundary fences only between the property and the public highway, and that residents are responsible for dividing fences between properties. With this in mind, the landlord went above and beyond its legal obligations in providing a temporary fence for the resident, after she had raised concerns about the safety of her grandchildren. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and it was not obliged to provide permanent fencing.
14. Additionally, it was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that she would be able to erect her own fence in the garden should she seek permission to do so beforehand. This was consistent with he tenancy agreement, in which it is stated in section 4.40 that the resident is “not to make any improvements to the property… the building and/or estate, except in the circumstances permitted by sections 97 to 99 of the Housing Act 1985, which is where [the resident has] first obtained [the landlord’s] written consent which [it] will not be unreasonably withheld and will be subject to any planning permission or any other permissions that may be needed”.
15. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord acted in line with its relevant policies and procedures, and also explained its reasoning and decision making to the resident. The landlord’s intentions and obligations were made clear, and these were carried out in an appropriate manner. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of maintenance to a hedge in the resident’s back garden.

The landlord’s complaint handling

16. The landlord is obliged to follow its policies and procedures when responding to formal complaints made by a resident. It is important for the landlord to respond to complaints within the agreed timescales in its complaints policy (ten working days for a stage one complaint and 20 working days for a stage two complaint). Should the landlord be unable to provide its responses within these timeframes, the landlord would be required to inform the resident of the situation and provide a new date for which a response could be expected.
17. It is clear from the evidence provided that whilst complaint responses were not given within the published timeframes, the landlord did send letters to the resident to inform of this and request additional time in order to investigate and finalise its responses. Additionally, these updates were sent before the due dates of the original responses, therefore giving reasonable notice to the resident that response would not be on time. In doing so, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. This is an important aspect of the landlord’s service delivery, and by doing so, it demonstrated that it was committed to adhering to its policies and procedures as best as it could. Additionally, the complaint responses were well thought out, detailed, and addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint. As such, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of maintenance to a hedge in the resident’s back garden.
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.