Home Group Limited (202107035)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107035

Home Group Limited

1 October 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 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 the resident’s request for wooden fencing in her rear garden.

Background and summary of events

Tenancy agreement

2. As per the tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord, it is responsible for keeping boundary fences in good repair, except those which divide her garden from neighbouring gardens, which she must repair.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
4. On 14 January 2020, the landlord’s records showed that the resident contacted it to report that almost all of the panels for her rear garden fence had fallen down, as well as that there were issues with her other fencing. It recorded that it therefore attended her property to renew the fencing there on 27 January and 7 February 2020.

Summary of events

5. The landlord noted that the resident subsequently contacted it again on 26 January 2021 to ask if she could have six-foot fencing at the property, as this had been fitted at neighbouring properties. Its records showed that it then logged another request to fit a new chain link fence at the property on 17 February 2021.
6. On 16 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that the resident had submitted a stage one complaint to it. This was about her not having a wooden fence, as “other people in the street are having wooden fencing put up and she also has no privacy” from the railway line at the rear of her garden.
7. On 26 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that its maintenance surveyor had inspected the resident’s rear garden fence on that date. They had found that this had recently been renewed on 26 February 2021, and that this was in good condition despite her reports that thorns and weeds were growing through the chain link fence, as well as finding that her original rear garden fence was also a chain link fence.
8. On 30 March 2021, the landlord recorded that it had explained to the resident that it had assessed the current chain link fence in her rear garden to be in good working order, and that it would not replace a chain link fence with a wooden one. It noted that she remained dissatisfied with this, and that she requested the escalation of her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure.
9. On 1 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had renewed the chain link fence on 26 February 2021. Following the landlord’s above inspection on 26 March 2021, it had found this to be in “sound condition”. On this basis, it would not look to replace the fence. The landlord also confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure.
10. On 12 April 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that the resident again requested the escalation of her complaint by it. She remained unhappy that her replacement fence was a chain link fence and not a wooden one. The resident instead wanted a fence “which she [could] not see through”.
11. On 27 April 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had replaced her rear garden fence on a like-for-like basis in line with its repairs and maintenance process. It recognised that there were some wooden fences on the estate, however it reiterated that the fences that were at the property at the beginning of a tenancy would be replaced with the same type of fences. Therefore, the landlord would not be replacing the resident’s chain link fence with a wooden one, which she could instead replace and maintain in the future at her own cost with its written permission, as it did not install fences for privacy reasons.
12. The resident went on to complain to this Service that the landlord had previously replaced her wooden rear garden fencing with a chain link fence instead of with the wooden fencing that she needed, as she was next to a railway and plants were growing through the chain link fence that she could not manage, as well as for privacy. She therefore requested that the chain link fence be replaced with six-foot wooden fencing.

Assessment and findings

13. Following the resident’s latest reports of her concerns over the fencing at her property from 26 January 2021, the landlord was required by her above tenancy agreement to ensure that the fencing was in good repair. It was therefore appropriate that it did so by logging a request to fit a new chain link fence at the property on 17 February 2021, and by attending this and renewing the fencing there on 26 February 2021.
14. As the resident subsequently contacted the landlord again on 16 March 2021 to complain about not having wooden fencing unlike neighbouring properties, it was obliged by the tenancy agreement to carry out an inspection to understand the condition of the fencing and confirm that this was in good repair. It did this on 26 March 2021, and its maintenance surveyor had determined on that date that the existing fencing had been renewed in February 2021, as outlined above, and that this was in good condition. As a result, they had assessed that no further work was required to the fencing.
15. This was reasonable of the landlord to do, as it carried out the initial inspection of the fencing, and it declined the resident’s request for wooden fencing based on this. This was because the existing chain link fence was found by its maintenance surveyor’s expert assessment to be in adequate condition, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. This was then communicated to the resident by the landlord in both its stage one and final stage complaint responses to her of 1 and 27 April 2021, respectively, which was additionally fair of it to do.
16. The resident has nevertheless suggested that there was already a wooden fence at the property, which the landlord had replaced with a chain link fence, and this may have occurred on 27 January and 7 February 2020 after she had reported that almost all of the fence panels had fallen down. In the absence of any other evidence of this, however, it was appropriate for it to rely on its maintenance surveyor’s above inspection’s evidence that there was originally chain link fencing at the property.
17. Therefore, as the landlord explained to the resident from 30 March 2021 that it would only consider replacing her fencing on a like-for-like basis, it was reasonable under the circumstances that it declined to replace the chain link fence with wooden fencing, particularly as it had found that this was in good repair.
18. Both the landlord and the resident have confirmed that there are other properties on the estate with wooden garden fencing. It addressed this aspect of her complaint in its final stage complaint response of 27 April 2021, and it reiterated that its policy was to replace such fencing on a like-for-like basis, so that it had only provided other properties with wooden fencing when this had originally been present. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, as it would have been expected to have had a consistent approach towards the appropriate use of social housing funding to do so.
19. It is nevertheless of concern that the resident reported that she originally had wooden fencing at the property, that the landlord’s records showed on 14 January 2020 that she had reported her rear garden fence panels had fallen down that also suggested this. It is also concerning that she reported being unable to manage the plants growing through the new chain link fence, and that this lacked privacy. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to try and resolve the resident’s complaint by considering reviewing its records to seek to confirm whether she originally had wooden fencing at the property, and by informing her whether it is able to assist her with managing the plants growing through the fence.
20. In summary, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to meet its obligations to the resident under her tenancy agreement, which were for it to review the circumstances of the case to ensure that her fencing was in good repair and to communicate this to her, in the way that it did. Therefore, there was no failure identified in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for wooden fencing in her rear garden.

Reasons

22. The landlord carried out an inspection, which had determined that the existing fence was in sound condition, in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
23. The landlord was not obliged to carry out the replacement of the resident’s chain link fence with a wooden one by her tenancy agreement, in light of the evidence provided of this.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Consider reviewing its records to seek to confirm whether the resident originally had wooden panel fencing in her rear garden.
    2. Inform the resident whether it is able to assist her with managing the plants growing through her rear garden’s chain link fence.
25. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
26. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.