Network Homes Limited (202112541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112541

Network Homes Limited

31 August 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 response to the resident’s request to replace the fence in the communal garden outside his flat, with a wall. 

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy for a two-bed ground floor flat in a modern block where he has lived since 2004. There is a communal grassed area outside his bedroom window. The window is at right angles to the public pathway and a wire fence bridges the gap between a boundary wall and the corner of the property. The resident has no vulnerabilities recorded.
3. The resident complained on 11 August 2021 that there was noise from a building site next door. He had previously said that workmen were sitting on the low wall at the front of the building. He asked for the wall to be extended where there was currently a wire fence, and ideally for the entire wall to be made higher so people could not sit on it. The landlord responded to say such work would be an improvement, rather than a repair, and it was not obliged to do the work.
4. The resident said that the fact the neighbour at the back of the block had a hedge between the garden and the public footpath made that garden private, and meant the resident was discriminated against for living in a different property. The landlord responded on 26 August 2021 to say there had been no evidence or grounds that discrimination had taken place and it was not obliged to change the fence.
5. The resident wants the landlord to extend the wall to grant him privacy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. The Ombudsman advised the resident on 18 January 2022 that it would be unable to consider the part of his complaint where he felt he had been discriminated against. As such, the resident was directed to the Equality Advisory Support Service. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer and more reasonable for the resident to seek a remedy through another tribunal or procedure.
7. This investigation has only considered how the landlord handled the resident’s request to install a higher wall, and whether it was reasonable for it to decline the request.

Assessment

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement dated September 2004 says at section 2.3.ix that the landlord agrees to ‘keep in good repair’ ‘boundary walls and fences where provided by the landlord. Similarly, the landlord’s repair policy says on page 12 that the landlord will ensure communal areas are kept in reasonable repair.
9. In this instance, once the resident raised the issue, the landlord quickly responded to say it had been passed to the planned works department. The landlord asked for photographs which the resident provided, and the landlord advised the resident to report any noise to the local council. A site visit was made by the landlord within three weeks of the initial contact, although there was a short delay in the resident being responded to. The landlord said that if the resident saw the landlord’s contractors parking outside his window he should report it so action could be taken. The landlord also offered the resident £50 towards noise cancelling headphones. 
10. The landlord’s response indicates that it took reasonable steps to assist the resident, albeit it did not offer the outcome he was seeking. Once the resident indicated he wished to formally complain about the matter, the landlord responded quickly to explain that it would not be replacing the fence. Whilst the resident was entitled to make the request for the wall to be extended, the landlord was not obligated to uphold the request and it provided the resident with a reasonable response.
11. There was no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement or the repairs policy to replace a boundary which is not broken. Although the noise/people sitting on the wall has only become an issue for the resident since the building work began, the resident’s building is on a main road and the resident would have been aware that his property was situated on the corner with the fence on taking the tenancy. Further, the low wall being extended would not necessarily stop the noise from the building site. The resident pointed to the fact that another tenant had a high hedge bordering the garden next to his property, and that it was unfair of the landlord not to grant him the same. However, in such a block of flats, residents will inevitably have slightly different features in their individual properties, and there is no obligation on landlords to provide exactly the same elements to each tenant.
12. The landlord was not responsible for the noise from the building site but signposted the resident to the local council and offered a contribution towards headphones. Overall, the landlord’s behaviour was considerate despite it having no obligation to make the changes the resident requested. The landlord has not acted unreasonably in all the circumstances.
13. It is noted that there was no clear stage one complaint response issued by the landlord. Although its emails of 25 August 2021 were from the complaints department, they did not state they were stage one complaint responses or offer escalation rights. In this case, the resident was quickly progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints process, so it did not hinder the investigation, but it was not clear what stage the matter was at and what the resident’s next step should be. 

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it replace the fence in the communal garden outside his flat with a wall. 

Recommendations

15. The landlord should remind its staff that its complaint responses should set out the stage a resident’s complaint is at and always provide appropriate escalation information to enable residents to progress correctly and without delay.