Clarion Housing Association Limited (202106023)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106023

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 August 2021

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 refusal to replace wooden fence posts with concrete ones to secure a fence to the rear of the resident’s property.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. In Spring 2017 a new fence was erected by the landlord to the rear of the resident’s property. In or around the end of 2018/beginning of 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the fence had fallen down. The landlord attended and repaired the fence. As is commonly the case, the fence panels were held in position by posts. When the landlord undertook the work, it used concrete posts for half of the fence and timber ones for the rest. 

 

3. In or around early 2020 the resident reported that the part of the fence held by the timber posts had come down again. The initial job to complete the work was scheduled for March 2020 and was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It could not be rescheduled until later in the year. The Ombudsman notes at this point that the landlord and resident were unable to agree on the best way forward. The landlord wanted to repair the fence using timber posts, as it had done before. The resident wanted the landlord to use concrete supports, firstly because it looked odd – the overall length of the fence being half concrete and half-timber; secondly because the concrete posts would be better in the long term at securing the fence; and thirdly because it was considered to be a false economy to use the cheaper material and face having to undertake further maintenance in the future.

 

 

 

 

Scope

 

4. The landlord has produced a repairs spreadsheet for the property (“the spreadsheet”). It details the jobs raised relating to the fence since the beginning of 2019. The resident has provided this Service with a report he made detailing faults to the fence in January 2018, which he asserts demonstrates how long issues with the fence have been going on for.

 

5. The spreadsheet makes reference to delays and missed appointments when the fence was first repositioned in 2019 and notes a complaint had been made about this. The current complaint relates solely to the landlord’s refusal to use concrete posts in place of the timber ones. Given that this is the issue that has progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it is the one that will be considered by this Service. Whilst the previous history will not, therefore, be examined, it assists in providing context to the current complaint.

 

Summary of Events

 

6. On 18 January 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form complaining about its use of half concrete and half-timber posts and stating that he wanted concrete posts used throughout the length of the fence. He chased for a response on 4 February 2021. The landlord replied that as its response was not yet due, the resident would be issued with a reply in the next few days.

 

7. On 18 February 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and confirmed it would be looking into the situation and would contact him in the next ten working days. Further, on 23 February 2021 the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint and stated it aimed to provide a response by 2 March 2021.

 

8. On 2 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response having spoken to him the day before. It confirmed its understanding of the complaint to be as follows: –

 

1. It had attended the resident’s property one year prior and replaced the fence and posts in the rear garden, using half concrete posts and half wooden posts.

 

2. The resident had reported that over the winter the wooden posts had fallen down. The landlord had attended and agreed to replace the posts – but with wooden ones and not the concrete ones the resident had requested.

 

9. The landlord explained that the wooden posts represented the materials that were available to it at the time of the repairs. They were put in place and photographic evidence demonstrated they were not falling down as reported by the resident. Consequently, the landlord was not willing to replace them with concrete posts, although it was willing to attend the property and secure the wooden posts further with what it described as “godfathers” as a compromise. This meant the posts would have a support added to them to make them sturdier.

 

10. The landlord noted that its complaint response had been delayed and was made outside of its published timeframe and it offered compensation of £50 as a result.

 

11. The landlord’s internal records show an escalation request was logged on 5 March 2021. The resident’s reasons for his continuing dissatisfaction were recorded as the fence was not secure and was being held up with rope. The godfather posts would also look “odd”. The resident wanted the job to be finished “properly” with concrete posts to match those already there.

 

12. On 16 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two complaint response. Having reviewed the matter it concluded its initial response had been appropriate and that it did not consider there had been any failing in the service offered. It confirmed that:

 

1. Its operatives had visited the property to inspect the fence on two occasions and both times advised that “grandfather” posts were all that were required to resolve the issue. It explained it was not obliged to install more expensive concrete posts purely based upon the way the fencing would look. It could not explain why some of the fence had been secured with concrete posts originally because its staff member who dealt with it was no longer in its employ.

 

2. It recorded that it had tried to arrange the work twice, but the resident had refused to allow the work to go ahead. In December 2020 its attendance had confirmed the fence was stable but if this was no longer the case, the resident should log a repair request.

 

13. The resident referred the matter to his MP who raised an enquiry with the landlord. On 14 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the MP in response to that contact. The landlord confirmed its stance and commented that “as a charity and a responsible social housing landlord, we need to be mindful of all spending and cannot justify more expensive repairs for purely aesthetic reasons.”

 

14. The landlord pointed out that it aimed to complete standard repairs within 20 working days of them being reported and there were no repairs at the property which had not been resolved within this time, apart from the fence repair. It stated this was because the resident had refused to allow access for the works to be completed.

 

15. The resident was supplied with a copy of this letter by his MP and has made the following representations.

 

1. The previous staff member approved the more expensive posts on the landlord’s behalf. The fact there was now a different staff member should make no difference.

 

2. The landlord’s decision was made purely on cost and disregarded quality altogether. He questioned why his property should suffer as a result. He pointed out that the wooden posts were more prone to disrepair, even with the godfather supports fitted and that it was a false economy to use the wooden materials.

 

3. The resident agreed that he had not allowed access to the landlord to repair the fence since its attendance in December 2020 and explained this was because he was dissatisfied with its proposed solution.

 

4. The resident suggested that the £50 compensation the landlord had offered for its delayed complaint response could be put towards the cost of fixing the fence in the way he wanted it done.

 

5. Finally, he confirmed the situation was causing him distress and anxiety.

 

Assessment and findings

 

16. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the fence. The resident’s current stance is that it needs repair – the landlord states this was not the case at its last visit in December 2020. It recognises this might have changed since.

 

17. It is not for this Service to offer an expert opinion as to how a fence should be erected – and that is what would be required to confirm that the concrete posts are necessary. No evidence has been produced to confirm the fence is still in need of repair and neither is there any to confirm that concrete posts are the correct solution and/or that wooden posts are/would be inadequate.

 

18. The resident reasonably reports being confused by the landlord’s decision to use what amounted to a “mix and match” of materials. Were the resident an owner/occupier it is reasonable to conclude he would not have made this decision for himself. Notwithstanding that, this Service recognises the landlord’s charitable status and will not compel it to use a more expensive way to resolve a problem when a more economic one is available – especially in the absence of any evidence to confirm the concrete posts were necessary.

 

19. On this basis the landlord’s decision to use timber posts and/or “godfather” supports does not amount to a failing in the service offered to the resident.

 

20. However, in an internal email dated 8 April 2021 the landlord’s staff member noted that the replacement of the wooden posts would cost £15 per post “with double that for a concrete post”. There are four posts concerned, meaning the difference amounts to £60. The resident questions whether the amount being spent on maintenance and repair of the timber posted section of the fence might be a false economy in the long run, given the cost of it. 

 

21. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord might reasonably have been expected to consider whether the resident had a valid point on this issue but there is no evidence that it has done so. Accordingly, a recommendation will be made to the effect that the landlord consider the resident’s representation about the potential for additional maintenance moving forward compared with an extra outlay now given that by the landlord’s own figures, the difference is reasonably modest. 

 

22. Further, the landlord has accepted there was a delay in providing its complaint response to the resident and offered compensation of £50. The resident has not complained to this Service about the landlord’s handling of his complaint, and it is not being considered here. However, he suggests that that compensation might be put towards the cost of installing the concrete posts. The resident has demonstrated he is open to reaching a compromise on the economics of this matter. A recommendation will be made that the landlord consider that offer.

 

Determination (decision)

 

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its refusal to replace wooden fence posts with concrete ones to secure a fence to the rear of the resident’s property.

 

Reasons

 

24. The landlord, as a charity, has limited resources and must use them as effectively as possible. It has identified that using timber posts for the resident’s fence represents an adequate repair and no evidence has been produced to this Service to contradict that view. There is no evidence of a service failure on its part as a result.

 

25. However, if the fence has needed/will need ongoing maintenance and repair it may be a false economy in the longer term according to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord has considered the situation from this point of view and it might reasonably have been expected to do so as part of a fair dispute resolution process. A relevant recommendation has therefore been made on this issue.  

 

26. Further, recommendations have been made to try to find a compromise which is satisfactory to both parties on the economics of the complaint.

 

Orders and/or Recommendations

 

Recommendations

 

27. The landlord to consider how the costs so far incurred and likely to be incurred to maintain the rear fence with timber supports compare with the costs of installation, maintenance and repair of the fence with concrete supports.

 

28. The landlord to consider whether it will install the concrete posts, as required by the resident, if he agrees to forego the sum of £50 awarded to him as compensation for its admitted delayed complaint response.

 

29. If not, the landlord to confirm to the resident how much it would be likely to spend installing the “godfather” supports, compared with how much it would cost to install the concrete posts and what the difference is, so that he can make an informed decision as to whether he wishes to offer to fund the shortfall.