Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202209828)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209828

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

17 March 2023

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 the resident’s request to replace the wire fencing and his subsequent request to be compensated following the removal of the old fence panelling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, whose tenancy began following a mutual exchange to the property on 17 October 2021.
3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 26 March 2022 expressing that he was unhappy that he had had to dispose of the wooden fence panels left by the landlord, following the previous tenant’s request to have the wooden fence replaced in 2019. He said that this had cost him his time, fuel charges, a £12 removal fee and a dirty car, which he would now have to pay to get cleaned.
4. He raised further concerns that the fence posts had not been removed by the landlord, causing a potential health and safety hazard and preventing him from installing new fencing. He stated that the wire fencing installed by the previous tenant was not secure, limited his privacy and allowed his neighbour’s dog to enter his garden uninvited. He also requested that the landlord explain why it had replaced the wooden fencing with a wire one.
5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 29 March 2022. While it did not uphold the resident’s complaint it agreed that the wooden panelling and fence posts should have been removed by its contractors in 2019. However, the landlord confirmed that as the previous resident did not inform the landlord that the wooden fence panels had been left by its contractor, no works were raised to remove them. It advised that it was not obligated to replace the fencing “like for like”, therefore, it would not replace the wire fence. It added that fencing suitable for privacy or restricting pet access would be the resident’s responsibility, and as such it would not consider the resident’s out-of-pocket expenses or look to compensate the resident for the removal of the old fence panels.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated his complaint to the final stage on the same day. The landlord did not uphold the complaint in its stage two complaint response, dated 13 April 2022. However, the landlord did agree that as the old fence posts presented a potential health and safety risk, it would remove these as a gesture of goodwill.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and brought his complaint to the attention of this Service. He advised that his preferred outcome was for the landlord to remove the wire fencing and remaining fence posts, compensate him for his out-of-pocket expenses, his fuel costs and for the distress and inconvenience this has caused. The resident also explained that the wire fencing made him feel that his home is not secure and requested that the landlord erect appropriate and secure fencing in its place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident had raised concerns over his neighbour’s dog entering his garden boundary uninvited and has had to keep cutting his neighbour’s bramble bushes back as a result off the lack of panelled fencing. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s internal complaints procedure, as the landlord should be given the chance to formally respond. As such, it has been considered a separate issue from this complaint and is therefore excluded from this report.

Policies and procedures

9. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, section 3a.10 states that the landlord is responsible to make good and repair any boundary walls, gates and fences that it installs.
10. In accordance with the landlord’s mutual exchange policy (located on its website), section 2.13 states that the incoming tenant (the resident) accepts the condition of the property ‘as seen’. However, the landlord will undertake repairs in which it is responsible for in line with its repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
11. In accordance with its goodwill and compensation policy, the landlord is able to make a discretionary gesture of goodwill where an inconvenience to a resident has been identified. It stipulates that the gesture of goodwill does not have to resemble a financial compensatory figure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the wire fencing and his subsequent request to be compensated following the removal of the old fence panelling

12. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that the incoming tenant accepts the condition of the property ‘as seen’. Therefore, the landlord was not obligated to change the wire fence prior to the resident moving into the property in October 2021.
13. Moreover, the resident’s tenancy agreement stipulates that he would be responsible to replace any of the currently installed fencing at the property. As such, the landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s request to restore the wood panel fencing was in accordance with its obligations.
14. However, when a resident reports that fencing poses a health and safety risk, the landlord would be expected to investigate accordingly. It was therefore appropriate the landlord conducted a thorough investigation in regard to the resident’s complaint, and accepted that the remaining fence posts posed a potential trip hazard. It exercised its discretion within its goodwill and compensation policy, by offering to remove the remaining fence posts as a gesture of goodwill in its stage two response.
15. The landlord would not be obligated to compensate the resident for the removal of, or any costs associated with, the old wooden fence panels left at the property. In line with the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, the resident had accepted the condition of the property ‘as seen’, which included the garden areas. At that time, the wire fence, old fence posts, and wooden panels would have been at the property from the previous works to install the wire fencing back in 2019.
16. The resident had raised concerns over the installation of wire fencing, believing that the landlord should have replaced the wooden fencing ‘like for like’. He believes that his property, and garden, were now unsafe as a result and that anyone could walk into the boundary.
17. While this Service understands the resident’s concerns regarding the security of his garden, the landlord would not be responsible to replace the wire fencing at the property. It had explained that as it was only liable to mark the property boundary, and as per its obligations in the resident’s tenancy agreement, it would therefore not look to install fencing for privacy or security reasons. The tenancy agreement states that it is the resident’s responsibility to modify or install alternative fencing with the permission of the landlord.
18. Furthermore, the landlord had clearly looked to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining its position throughout its complaint process. Its decision to not replace the wire fencing with more secure fencing, was in line with its mutual exchange policy and the available evidence does not indicate that the resident raised this as a concern whilst the mutual exchange was being progressed.
19. To conclude, it is clear in this case that the landlord had met its obligations under the above policies to the resident, both in its actions, and its formal complaint responses. Despite the resident’s concerns over the security of his property, ultimately, the landlord had no responsibility to either install, nor reinstate the wooden fence panels.
20. While the resident had experienced out-pocket- expenses in the removal of the old wooden fence panels, the landlord would not be obligated to remunerate these costs. It exercised its discretion within its goodwill and compensation policy, offering a gesture of goodwill to remove any potential safety concerns to the resident, and allowing him to install fencing as he deems appropriate. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to determine any service failure, and an overall finding of no maladministration on the issue has been given below.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration found in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the wire fencing and his subsequent request to be compensated following the removal of the old fence panelling.