Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Kingston upon Hull City Council (202422677)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422677

Kingston upon Hull City Council

29 July 2025

 

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 requests for it to replace or repair a fence at the property.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house since 26 August 2013. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has chronic kidney disease. They have two adult children living at the house with them, one has talipes which affects mobility, the other has severe anxiety.
  2. On 6 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the fence built by the previous resident was collapsing. The resident was requesting a wall to be rebuilt to secure the property. The resident chased a response to their request on 2 April 2024 and 16 July 2024. On 16 July 2024 they logged a stage 1 complaint by telephone. They said they could not afford to replace or repair the fence themselves and they were unhappy that they had received no response to their previous requests for a replacement.
  3. On 22 July 2024, the landlord submitted their stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. fencing is the resident’s responsibility as stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord would not replace or repair the fencing
    2. the area housing team apologised for the lack of response to the resident’s previous requests for service
    3. the landlord had visited the property in December 2022 and explained that they would not replace the fence, but the resident could request permission to replace the fence themselves
    4. the complaint was not upheld
  4. On 31 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord requesting that their complaint be escalated to stage 2. They said:
    1. the fence was erected in 2010-2012 by the previous resident. When the resident moved into the property in August 2013 the fence was already showing signs of wear. Although the landlord told the resident that the fence was their responsibility, they did not make clear the structural issues with the fence when the resident moved in
    2. a few months after the resident moved in, the landlord erected a new fence to the side of the property. This fence was connected to the old fence. The resident believes this caused further damage to the fence that was already in situ
    3. if the fence fell down it would expose the garden to the street. The resident had concerns about crime, harassment and antisocial behaviour
    4. the resident’s eldest son is physically disabled and her youngest son has severe anxiety. The fence exposing the garden posed safety and mental health concerns for the whole family
    5. the visit from the landlord in December 2022 was for a matter unrelated to the fence
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 21 August 2024. They said:
    1. the landlord had no liability for fence replacement or repair. Fences are the resident’s responsibility under section 20.2 of the tenancy agreement
    2. when the property was in void a contractor surveyed the fence and found only the front elevation gate/fence section needed replacing. The rest was fit for purpose and within voids requirements
    3. the repair history showed no reports about the fence in the past 11 years
    4. the resident had said they were not in a financial position to replace the fence and intended to withhold rent. The landlord advised that a complaint was not a reason to withhold rent
    5. the landlord said they would ask the area housing team if they would consider helping to fund a replacement fence
  6. The resident was unhappy with this response, they wanted the fence to be replaced or adequately repaired by the landlord. They escalated their complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Our determination will investigate the issues raised by the resident during the complaint process and addressed by the landlord in its final response. We have to consider our jurisdiction as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot consider complaints or parts of complaints. In this complaint the resident has referred to issues with the fence dating back to when the tenancy started in 2013. We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of an issue occurring. Information for this case has been reviewed for the 12 months up to the resident raising their stage 1 complaint to their landlord.

Fence replacement

  1. There were unreasonable delays with the landlord’s response to requests for a repairs service from the resident. The resident first raised the issue on 6 March 2024 but did not receive a response until they submitted a stage 1 complaint on 16 July 2024.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for undertaking minor repairs and maintenance at the property, and replacement when needed. This includes fences and gates. At all stages of this complaint the landlord has reiterated this stance.
  3. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord visited the resident on 5 September 2024 and offered to provide a quote for a fence. They were willing to look at a repayment plan with the resident. A quote of £650 was provided by a contractor on 18 October 2024. Although it is not clear if this particular quote was shared with the resident, the resident did state that a quote had been provided and repayment plan discussed. This was put on hold while the Ombudsman’s investigation took place. Despite the resident saying that buying a fence was not financially viable for them, there is no evidence to show that the landlord offered to signpost them or make a referral for financial help.
  4. Considering the information above, there were service failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for it to replace or repair a fence at the property. Although the landlord apologised for its lack of response to the resident’s initial queries, the resident was forced to wait over 4 months and raise a stage 1 complaint to get an answer to their concerns. While the landlord had no responsibility to replace or repair the fence, it would have been appropriate to assist the resident in seeking financial support, considering their personal circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for the fence to be replaced or repaired.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £100 for the resident’s time and trouble of having to chase a response to their query.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider signposting the resident for suitable financial help or support, where available, towards the cost of a fence.