Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212152)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212152

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 January 2024

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for boundary fencing to be reinstated.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, he resides in a two bedroom house.
3. On 5 April 2021 there was a fire in a privately owned neighbouring property. This caused irreparable damage to the boundary fencing between the two properties, the landlord was made aware of this, and a repair was raised in June 2021.
4. The landlord attended on 24 August 2021 to install new posts and a wire fence, however the work was not completed due to the neighbour disputing the boundary line. A further appointment was made for 11 November 2021, the evidence shows that this was cancelled by the resident.
5. The resident contacted the landlord again in February 2022 requesting an update, from the evidence provided no further action was taken by the landlord until his subsequent complaint on 10 May 2022. In his complaint the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the repair was still unresolved after 13 months, he said that as a result he had no privacy or security as his garden was accessible to the public. He had removed all personal items from the garden and placed them in storage at his own cost.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2022 in which it attributed the delays to the boundary dispute with the neighbour. In recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to follow process, repeat visits, lack of communication and lack of ownership the landlord offered £450 compensation. It also offered an additional £25 for failing to respond within the timeframe set out within its complaints policy, which at the time was 10 working days.
7. Following further delays the resident escalated his complaint, in resolution he asked for the repair to be completed and a reduction in rent to account for him being unable to enjoy the use of his garden. The landlord responded on 26 September 2022 and acknowledged the delay, it explained that due to the ongoing boundary dispute a full resolution would likely take more time. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £600 in total, this included the original offer plus an additional amount for the inconvenience caused and for its failure to follow its internal complaints policy. This amount has been paid to the resident.
8. An independent surveyor attended on 15 November 2022 to establish the boundary line. The landlord confirmed that it would update the resident at the beginning of January 2023 once his neighbour had removed the debris, there is no evidence that this happened which resulted in the resident approaching our service.
9. Both parties have confirmed that the fencing works were completed in September 2023. However, the resident remains dissatisfied with the length of time taken and the decision not to install wooden fencing.

Assessment and findings

10. The occupancy agreement is silent in relation to fencing, however, the landlord’s website confirms that it is responsible for boundary walls and fencing. The occupancy agreement also says that the resident has the right to have certain urgent minor repairs carried out quickly and at no cost to him where the repair may affect safety or security. The landlord appropriately accepted responsibility for the repair when it was first reported and arranged to attend within a reasonable period in line with its policy.
11. In accepting responsibility for the repair, the landlord agreed to install new posts and wire fencing. The resident was unhappy with this and requested posts and wooden panels, similar to what existed previously to reinstate security. The resident informed this service that he paid for the original fencing. The landlord stated that this decision was in accordance with its policy, although the landlord does not have a specific fencing policy its website does state that if it repairs fences, it may replace wooden fences with wire and post fences. Despite the resident being unhappy with this the landlord appropriately managed expectations throughout the process and within its stage 2 response.
12. From the evidence provided the landlord became aware that the neighbour was disputing the boundary line in August 2021, however there is no evidence that proactive steps were taken to resolve the matter until the resident raised a stage one complaint in May 2022. An independent survey was instructed in August 2022, one year after the landlord became aware of the dispute. This was an unreasonable delay and resulted in further delays and frustration for the resident.
13. From the evidence of the landlords’ internal communications, the landlord actively avoided chasing the issue due to its complexity and the associated costs, referring to it as a “bad, expensive job.” In doing so the landlord failed in its repair obligations to the resident.
14. Throughout the duration of the repair the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident, he was told on several occasions that he would be kept updated. The evidence shows that this did not happen, and he had to chase them on multiple occasions causing him time, trouble, and inconvenience.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it recognises that on occasions mistakes will occur, when this happens it will say sorry and work with the resident and contractors to put things right. In some situations, it may be appropriate to offer compensation where a resident has incurred out of pocket expenses or unnecessary inconvenience. The policy expands on this by detailing 3 brackets of awards:
    1. service failure.
    2. considerable failure.
    3. significant failure.
16. In September 2022, the landlord attempted to put things right within its stage 2 response by increasing its offer of compensation to £600, in line with an award for a considerable failure. At this stage the landlord’s response and compensation offer was reasonable, the landlord did apologise and advised that the boundary dispute was ongoing and may take time to fully resolve. However, a further 12 months passed until the repair was finally completed, demonstrating a lack of learning from the landlord.
17. In summary, the landlord’s failure to address the boundary dispute in a timely manner resulted in substantial avoidable delays. In total it took 26 months for the repair to be completed, far exceeding any timeframes set out within its internal repairs policy. These delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. In addition, it failed to appropriately communicate with the resident throughout the repair journey. Although the compensation was reasonable at the time offered, it does not reasonably reflect the additional 12 months the resident had to wait until the repair was completed. While it is understandable that the resident is dissatisfied with the decision to install wire fencing rather than wooden panels, the landlord has acted within its responsibilities set out on its website.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for the boundary fencing to be reinstated.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

19. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide to the resident a written apology for its failures and delays in its handling of the repair. Its letter should also acknowledge the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £300 in recognition of the additional delays in resolving the repair and the inconvenience this caused.

Recommendations

20. It is recommended that the landlord considers implementing a specific fencing policy ensuring that its stance on replacing wooden fencing with wire and post fencing is clear.