The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202011305)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011305

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

9 April 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 resident complains about the garden fence that the landlord provided, its subsequent decision not to replace this with the same type that had been provided to neighbours, and its communication with her when she raised these concerns.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 20 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the mesh garden fence at the property was coming down. The landlord’s contractors attended to assess and make safe on 23 July 2020. The landlord received a quote from the contractor on 10 August 2020 to renew five panels, which was authorised by the landlord and works were carried out on 17 August 2020. Further works were required to remove tree roots in the garden. All works were completed by 28 August 2020.
  2. On 20 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for a copy of its policy on repairs to fencing, explaining that she required this as she was going to make a complaint “…due to the discrimination that I have endured during this process of not having works completed as they should have been.” The landlord replied that same day explaining that it replaced fencing “like for like”. It said that it had spoken with the contractor, and understood that it was installing wooden fencing at the resident’s property, which was an “improvement” as chain link fencing was in place previously.
  3. The resident responded asking why, if that was the case, her neighbours had been provided with concrete posts and replacement fencing two weeks previously. She considered that her own fence should have had concrete also, as this would last longer, and would mean she was treated equally with the neighbours. The landlord replied by stating that it was not able to explain why this had happened but said possibly the “like for like” repairs policy had not been understood by the contractor. 
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and asked the landlord for both its repair and void policies. In response, the landlord reiterated that the resident’s chain link fence has been replaced with a wooden fence which was an improvement, as it should have been replaced with another chain link fence. It said that it could not comment on the neighbours’ situation, stating “…that is a different case and has no relevance to your case.”
  5. The resident repeated her request for both the repair and void policies, and the landlord asked the repairs team to send these to her. The resident chased this up on 4 September 2020 as she had not reicved them, and the landlord again asked the repairs team to provide the information. As the resident still had not received this by 30 September 2020 she chased again. It appears that she logged a formal complaint around this time, although the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this.
  6. The landlord provided its response on 12 October 2020. It said that when its contractor attended after the 22 July 2020 repair report, it had requested that the fence to be renewed due to its condition. As the fence that was being replaced was a chain link fence, it should have been replaced with another chain link fence. However, the fence that was installed was a wooden panel fence. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint that she had been discriminated against as her neighbours’ had a concrete plinth, whereas her fence did not, however “…different residents do at times have different needs, this may lead to us carrying out slightly different works then standard in different areas.” The landlord stated that it would not be changing the resident’s new fence to match the neighbours’. Finally, the landlord apologised that the resident had been requesting copies of policies for several weeks, and enclosed copies of those that were relevant.
  7. The resident responded on 16 October 2020, saying that she was appalled and saddened that the matter had not been rectified, and had been hoping for a full investigation. She asked “My question to you is why was concrete plinth put up not just at [neighbouring properties] (who are leaseholders), was there a service there that meant you had to complete this too but yet when it came to completing my fence, which was exactly the same as [the neighbouring properties] I get wooden plinths, can you explain why a repair is not to the same level if this is like for like and why did you not do chain link fence for all?”
  8. The resident pointed out that the landlord’s Care Policy set out that she should have been called within two days of raising her complaint to discuss this, but this had not happened, and asked the landlord why it had failed to follow its own policy. The resident said that, had the landlord contacted her to discuss the matter, it would have been made aware that “part and parcel” of the complaint were concerns about the service received from the contractor, which had used 5 x 6 size fence panels instead of 6 x 6. She said that the work that had been carried out was “shoddy” and the contractor had been rude and did not turn up when it should have. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  9. The landlord replied on 23 October 2020 saying that it had consulted with its Assistant Director of Technical Services who would review all the recent contacts and be back in touch with the resident the following week. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident had not been good, and agreed that it should have made contact with her before issuing a response to the complaint, and apologised that this had not happened.  It explained that, should the resident remain dissatisfied with the outcome proposed by the Assistant Director, it would escalate the case to the review panel.
  10. The Assistant Director discussed the matter with the resident, and on 30 October 2020 provided a written response to the issues raised. The letter acknowledged failings in communication and customer care, stating “I am really sorry that you have had to wait for a resolution and I apologise for the level of care you have received throughout this process. You should have been given more clarity about the process, you should have been provided with the Repairs Policy as soon as you asked for it, and you should not have had to chase for responses.” The landlord awarded £100 compensation in line with its Care Policy for the inconvenience caused.
  11. In relation to the fence, the landlord acknowledged that the resident felt she had been treated unfairly, but as it had discussed with her, there may be underlying reasons for the enhanced specification of the neighbours’ fence, or it may have been installed as a result of a staff error as it was its policy to replace all items “like for like” which would mean that all of the chain link fences replaced should have been replaced chain link fences. The landlord confirmed that the neighbours’ fence was replaced with a timber board fence supported by concrete posts and gravel boards, and the resident’s fence with a wooden panel fence. The landlord did not agree that further upgrading of the residents’ fence was necessary, or that this would be a good use of resource.
  12. The landlord listed a number of actions that would be taken in light of the complaint which included: meeting with the Void Manager to determine the reason for the neighbours’ enhanced fence specification; refresher training for technical staff on relevant policies and specifications and the requirement to specify “like for like” replacements unless there is a compelling reason not to; raise operative conduct and customer care issues formally with the contractor; ensure that works of this type are specified, wherever possible, by a surveyor and that communication is clear from the outset.
  13. The resident remained dissatisfied and on 9 Novmeebr 2020 confirmed that she would like the matter to go to the review panel, and that the outcome sought was “…to have the fence at the same standard as neighbouring properties, to what Harca have completed them with the concrete plinths and concrete gravel boards.”
  14. The resident discussed the matter with the panel on 3 December 2020, and on 8 December 2020 the panel sent the final response. In this it acknowledged that the landlord’s handling of the repair had, at times, not met the standards expected in terms of communications and timeliness. It agreed that the resident should have been provided with the policies she asked for sooner, that the works to her fence should have been carried out more quickly, and that communication should have been more proactive, and apologised for the poor experiences the resident had encountered. However, having considered carefully, the panel felt that the award of £100 represented a reasonable payment for the inconvenience experienced, and was in line with the Care Policy.
  15. The panel accepted that an error was made with the specification of both the resident’s fence and the neighbours’ fence, but did not consider that the resident had been disadvantaged by this and was satisfied that the landlord’s contractual responsibilities to the resident had been met. The panel had concluded “We did not feel that a further replacement of your fencing to provide a timber board fencing with a concrete gravel board and concrete posts which matches your neighbour’s fence could be justified in this instance.” It did recommend that staff were reminded that works should be specified in line with policies for replacements of “like for like”, and that policies should be applied consistently.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: to be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that her neighbour had their fence replaced with a concrete plinth, but her fence was replaced with a wooden plinth, which she considers is unfair and shows that she has been treated differently. It took a long time for the landlord to provide the policies she requested, and it did not follow its Care Policy and contact her to discuss her complaint. The outcome the resident is seeking is for the repair to be completed with 6×6 panels and concrete plinths. She states that the fence panels were meant to be 6x6 but instead 5x6 panels were ordered because of lead times with the manufacturers. She states that there is a gap under the fence and that this had meant that it has sunk into the soil. The landlord has filled the gap with wood but she believes that the wood will in time rot, although this had not occurred so far. The resident explained that she had raised this with the landlord which had said should this happen, it could replace the wood with more wood.
  3. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair, including fences. In light of this, the landlord was obliged to rectify repairs issues with the fence, which in this case meant replacing it. The landlord has explained that it has a ‘like for like’ policy, which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable: landlords are required to carry out necessary repairs, ensure a property is habitable and everything they provide is in good working order, but the repair is not required to be an ‘improvement’ on the existing specification.
  4. This meant that, in line with its policy, the landlord should have replaced the resident’s fence with another chain link fence, instead of a wooden one, and the landlord has confirmed that not doing so was an error on its part. However, given that a wooden fence is considered by both parties to be an improvement to the chain link fence, the resident has benefited from this error rather than been adversely affected by it. While the resident has concerns the fence is five foot high rather than six foot, the landlord is not obliged to provide a particular height of fence.  Further, while the Ombudsman appreciates that she is concerned that parts may rot with time, there is no indication from her submissions that there are any issues with this at present nor any other repair issues with the fence. In light of this, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has fulfilled its obligation to keep the fence in good repair.
  5. The resident is also concerned that her neighbours have been provided with a better quality fence and feels discriminated against by the landlord on this basis. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident feels strongly about this, but the landlord has clearly explained that this could have been due to a mistake on its part, as it made with her own fence replacement, or because of the differing needs of another resident. The Ombudsman considers this a reasonable explanation, and further finds that the fact that a neighbour had a fence of a certain specification does not confer an obligation on the landlord to provide the same to the resident. Given that the resident’s fence is fit for purpose, it would not be a good use of the landlord’s limited resources to replace it.
  6. In relation to the delay in providing the policies requested, failure to contact the resident after she made her complaint to discuss this, and other communication issues, the landlord’s responses to the complaint have acknowledged these failings and offered apologies. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s 30 October 2020 letter to be particularly clear in setting out its findings, acknowledging where it had gone wrong, and offering a resolution for this. The compensation of £100 was in line with its compensation policy which set out amounts of between £50 and £100 in medium impact cases. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate action to “put things right” for the resident.
  7. Further, the landlord clearly set out what steps it would take to learn from the complaint and try to ensure similar mistakes were avoided in the future, demonstrating that it had “learned from outcomes”.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided “reasonable redress” which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the fence, and the subsequent formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
  2. In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord fulfilled its obligation to keep the fence in good repair, and where there were failings in its communication, it took steps to learn from outcomes and put things right.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the £100 offered via its complaint process.