Vico Homes Limited (202346319)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346319

Vico Homes Limited

19 August 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 response to the resident’s request for a new garden fence.

Background

2. The resident has lived in the property since 1989. She has held an assured tenancy with the current landlord since 2005. There are no known vulnerabilities in the household.
3. On 4 December 2023, the resident phoned her landlord to report that her rear garden fence was in disrepair. The next day, the landlord spoke with the resident to explain that rear fence repairs were the responsibility of the resident. The resident said she felt vulnerable because of the public field behind the garden.
4. Between 11 December 2023 and 2 January 2024, the landlord made several failed attempts to speak directly with the resident both in person and over the phone.
5. On 2 January 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to reiterate that repair and maintenance of rear fencing was the responsibility of the resident. The landlord referenced its repairs and maintenance policy.
6. On 12 February 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. Her stage 1 complaint concerned:
   1. dissatisfaction with the answer from the landlord, as she had not seen the repairs and maintenance policy when signing her tenancy agreement
   2. the fencing having collapsed due to age, weathering, and rotten posts
   3. feeling vulnerable and exposed to the public field behind her garden
   4. the hedge behind the fence providing little protection or privacy
7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 February 2024. It confirmed the message that the resident is responsible for rear fencing, in line with its repair and maintenance policy.
8. On 26 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. Her escalation concerned:
   1. not having previously seen the policy the landlord referred to
   2. disappointment that no compromise was offered, such as new fence posts
9. The landlord sent its final response on 13 March 2024. It held its position that it would not repair or maintain the fence. It provided a copy of the policy document and gave the resident a point of contact in the customer relations team to discuss further if necessary.
10. The complaint was referred to us for investigation on 15 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new garden fence

11. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that repair and maintenance of the rear garden fence is the responsibility of the resident. Exceptions apply if:
    1. [the rear garden fence] leads directly to a hazard which poses direct risk to life
    2. the resident is considered vulnerable
12. On 4 December 2023, the resident contacted her landlord to report that her rear garden fence was in disrepair. She said she felt vulnerable because of the public field behind her garden.
13. On 5 December 2023, the landlord phoned the resident to confirm that in line with its policy, rear fence repair and maintenance is the responsibility of the resident. The landlord’s call notes say that the resident reported drug use on the field behind her garden, making her feel uncomfortable.
14. After this conversation, the landlord tried to follow up with the resident on the following days:
    1. 11 December 2023, the landlord visited the property, but the resident did not answer. The landlord phoned her landline and left a voicemail requesting a call back
    2. 18 December 2023, the landlord visited the property, but the resident did not answer. The landlord left a calling card with a note to confirm its decision on the fencing
    3. 2 January 2024, the landlord visited the property, but the resident did not answer. The landlord phoned the resident’s mobile number. It left a voicemail asking if the resident had received the calling card left on 18 December 2023
    4. 2 January 2024, the landlord wrote a letter to the resident to confirm that in line with their policy, it cannot replace the fencing
15. In dealing with the resident’s concerns, the landlord had made reasonable attempts to speak directly with her. It provided clear and consistent messaging about its decision and referenced the appropriate policy. However, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of drug use and feeling uncomfortable. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider potential vulnerabilities and ensure the resident knew how to report antisocial behaviour.
16. On 12 February 2024, the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, as she disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to repair her fence. The stage 1 response said that the team member managing the complaint had spoken with the resident on 16 February 2024. The conversation covered issues that had occurred which had led to the resident raising a complaint. On 22 February 2024, the stage 1 response was issued confirming that the landlord was not responsible for repairs or maintenance of rear garden fencing unless it led directly to a hazard which posed a risk to life.
17. The landlord’s response referenced the correct policy and provided a clear decision with reasons. A team member had contacted the resident to discuss her complaint in more detail before providing a response, which showed a customer focused approach to complaint handling. However, its response did not address all aspects of the complaint in full. The resident expressed in her stage 1 complaint that she felt vulnerable by being exposed to the public field behind her garden. She also complained that she had not seen a copy of the repairs policy when signing her tenancy agreement. By failing to address all aspects of the complaint, the landlord did not handle the stage 1 complaint appropriately.
18. The landlord issued its final response on 13 March 2024. It reiterated the same message to the resident and referenced the correct policy. It said that not all information can be included in the tenancy agreement, and policy documents are necessary to ensure consistency in treatment for all customers. It appropriately noted that it had given the same position on this matter in May 2022 and April 2023. It provided the resident with a copy of the policy document and gave her a single point of contact in the customer relations team to discuss further if needed. It advised that this was the final decision on the matter, and the resident could escalate to our service if necessary.
19. The landlord appropriately addressed all aspects of the stage 2 escalation and gave reasons for its decision. It had no obligation to offer a compromise and gave the resident a point of contact to discuss further if needed. This showed a commitment to positive relationship management. However, the feelings of vulnerability described by the resident in her initial contact and again in her stage 1 complaint had still not been addressed, which was a missed opportunity.
20. In summary, the resident raised on more than one occasion feelings of vulnerability and concerns with being exposed to the public field behind her garden. The landlord did not acknowledge her vulnerability concerns or explore how the exposure to the public field may have been impacting her. While it is unlikely that this would have changed the outcome, it was a failing that it did not provide a position on her concerns, especially given that its policy noted vulnerability as a factor when considering repairs. The landlord could have improved it service by demonstrating that it had fully considered and understood the resident’s concerns.
21. Given the above, we have made a finding of service failure. We recognise that the landlord demonstrated a positive approach to customer care, but there was more that it could have done. Although the overall outcome of the complaint was not impacted, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerability concerns or reports of potential hazards on the public field behind her garden.
22. We have made an order below to award the resident £50 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failing that has not been appropriately acknowledged by the landlord.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new garden fence.

Orders and recommendations

24. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £50 in compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the failure to fully consider the reported concerns and communicate this to the resident.
25. The landlord should make the payment directly to the resident and not offset against any debt owed.