London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202109177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109177

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

13 January 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of a broken front fence.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident reported damage to the rear garden dividing fence on 31 January 2020. The repair records show several appointments to resolve this during 2020. There is no evidence indicating that damage to the front fence was reported to the landlord at that time. 
4. The landlord’s website explains that in April 2021 it “introduced our new repairs offer to make it clear what we’ll repair and what we expect residents to repair.” The document explaining the landlord’s “repairs offer” made clear that the landlord would be responsible for boundary fences, while residents would be responsible for dividing fences (boundary fences are usually considered to be fences separating a tenant’s home or garden from a public space, such as a footpath or park. Dividing fences are usually fences between two tenants’ gardens or property). The previous repairs policy was silent on responsibility for private dividing fences.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 28 April 2021, as she did not agree with the landlord’s new policy. She said she had reported that the front garden fence was damaged in 2020, and said it was now a health and safety risk due to the fence’s sharp edges. She said her neighbour had also reported the damage.
6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 May 2021.
7. The landlord raised a work order to make the front garden fence safe on 21 May 2021.
8. The landlord’s notes on 24 May 2021 state a contractor attended the property to make the fence safe, but no follow-on works were required as the repair was the resident’s responsibility.
9. An internal email on 28 May 2021 notes that the resident had called requesting an update on the complaint. She also said a contractor had attended to make the fence safe but had left half the fence up, and the other half resting against the wall.
10. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 May 2021. It said its repair policy had changed on 6th April 2021 and due to this it could not complete the repair her front fence. It apologised for the delayed response, and explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied (this is presumably the landlord’s stage one response although it is not clearly labelled as such).
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 May 2021. She said she wanted to “escalate this due to this fence being a boundary fence between myself and a neighbour I feel it not safe to have open boundaries because the properties are not communal”.
12. The resident called the landlord on 1 June 2021, again requesting for the complaint to be escalated. She said the fence was damaged by wind and was held up by a bin and she had reported this in 2020; she was told that type of repair was not being carried out at the time, and it then became more unsafe.
13. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request on 4 June 2021. It advised that due to a high number of cases it was unsure of the expected response timeframe.
14. The resident called the landlord on 15 June 2021, 30 June 2021 and 5 July 2021 requesting an update on the complaint. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 June 2021 apologising for the delays, but did not respond to the further emails.
15. The resident submitted a new online complaint form on 27 July 2021, which again requested escalation of the complaint to stage two. She did not provide any new information.
16. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 July 2021 stating the “repair policy advises that if the fence is separating two gardens then this would be a dividing fence and is the responsibility of our residents to repair or replace”. Nonetheless, it said it would fully investigate the issue.
17. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 September 2021. It apologised for the delay and said it would issue a response by 29 September 2021.
18. An internal email on 14 September 2021 states the fence is a “waist high picket fence in the front between two properties”, which separates the driveways between the neighbouring properties.
19. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 21 September 2021. It apologised for the delay. It summarised the actions it had taken and concluded it was not responsible for the repair of dividing fences; it had determined it was not a boundary fence. It acknowledged delays in its responses to the resident, and offered £95 in compensation; this was made up of £10 for failure to respond within the complaint timeframe, £60 for inconvenience and time and effort spent pursuing the complaint and £35 for “maladministration” for the delay in the stage two response. It explained how she could escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
20. In her complaint to this Service the resident explained that the fence was in place when she started her tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

21. The landlord has provided its repair policy for the period up to March 2021. The policy is dated May 2018. It makes clear that the landlord is responsible for repair and maintenance of boundary fences, and of both boundary and dividing fences in communal gardens. The policy is silent on responsibility for private dividing fences.
22. The landlord’s latest repair policy is dated 31 March 2021. It sets out that:
    1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to “boundary fences and gates (fencing and gates which separate the garden from a public area)”.
    2. Residents are responsible for repairs to “dividing fences and gates (fencing and gates which separate a garden from a neighbours garden)”.
23. The landlord’s complaint policy states:
    1. It will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days.
    2. In stage two it will contact the complainant within two working days to discuss the complaint and issue a response within 20 working days.
    3. If the complaint response timeframe needs to be extended the complainant will be notified.
    4. £10 compensation will be awarded if it fails to adhere to the complaint timeframes.

Damage to the front fence

24. The resident’s front fence is between her driveway and her neighbour’s. It therefore is categorised as a dividing fence rather than a boundary fence as it separates the two properties and not the property from a public area. The landlord’s repair policies do not show that the landlord was responsible for private dividing fences (even before the apparent change in 2021), regardless of its actions to repair the rear fence in 2020. In any case, while the repair records show that the rear garden fence was reported and repaired in 2020, there is no evidence in the information provided for this investigation showing reports to the landlord of damage to the front fence before April 2021.
25. Following the resident’s report at the end of April 2021, the landlord made the fence safe on 24 May 2021. Making something safe does not imply that a landlord has taken on an obligation to conduct any necessary repairs. Therefore, although it is good practice for the landlord to make safe any repairs that have been reported as health and safety risks, it does not mean it is now obliged to complete the repair.
26. The resident has explained that the fence was in place when she started her tenancy. However, no evidence has been provided indicating that the landlord had installed it, or was responsible for it.
27. Overall, the landlord has handled the resident’s report of the broken fence reasonably and in line with its repair policies.

Complaint handling

28. The resident sent the stage one complaint on 28 April 2021, which the landlord responded to on 28 May 2021. Although this exceeded the landlord’s complaint timeframe of ten working days for a stage one response, it did not have a significant impact upon the complaint outcome. The landlord also took action to make the fence safe prior to sending the response. However, the response was not formally labelled as such, which could have led to the resident misinterpreting it. The delays in the stage two response were more substantial as the resident escalated the complaint on 1 June 2021 and the final response was issued on 14 September 2021. The resident also requested updates on three occasions which the landlord did not respond to, causing the resident additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
29. The landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delay on two occasions, the failure was acknowledged by the landlord in the stage two response and the landlord appropriately compensated the resident. It offered £10 for not adhering to its complaint timeframes, which is in line with its policy, as well as £60 for inconvenience, time and effort and £35 for the delayed stage two response. The compensation is in line with this Service’s remedy guidance for complaints where a landlord has failed to meet service standards for responses. The landlord has therefore made reasonable redress for the failings in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

30. 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 report of the broken front fence.
31. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling failures satisfactorily.

Reasons

32. In line with the repair policy the landlord is not obliged to repair the dividing fence.
33. The landlord exceeded its complaint timeframes but has appropriately remedied is delays.