Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Thurrock Council (202348158)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348158

Thurrock Council

25 September 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 report of a damaged garden fence.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a semi-detached house owned by the landlord, a local authority. Her garden is separated from the next property by a dividing fence.
  2. The resident first reported to the landlord that the fence had blown down on 2 January 2024. She said it had erected the fence poorly and this happened every time there were strong winds.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 January 2024 after it advised she was responsible for the fence repairs. She was not satisfied with this response.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 17 January 2024. It reiterated that she was responsible for the fence and it did not uphold the complaint.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 22 January 2024. She was again dissatisfied with its response elaborating it had repaired the fence on previous occasions. In its stage 2 response on 19 March 2024 it explained the reasons for the previous repairs, repeated it was the resident’s responsibility, and it did not uphold the complaint.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to us. She felt the landlord was being unreasonable expecting her to maintain a fence that it had not adequately installed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said she had been reporting issues with the fence to the landlord since 2017. Both parties referenced a previous complaint about the matter. Neither party provided copies of the complaint responses. We generally expect residents to escalate complaints to this Service within 12 months of receiving the final complaint response, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. We have seen no evidence that the resident did so in this case. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on the more recent reports of issues with the fence from January 2024 to March 2024. Any reference to previous events is for context only.

The fence repair

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents are responsible for dividing fencing unless they have a vulnerability which would entitle them to an enhanced service. It has confirmed that it considers a fence between 2 properties that it owns, as is the case here, to be a dividing fence.
  2. We do not have the authority to make a legally binding decision about fence responsibility. As such, this investigation has not sought to make a finding on this part of the complaint. Rather, the focus has been on the landlord’s response to the resident and whether it followed a reasonable process and was fair overall with the actions it took.
  3. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident made an earlier complaint regarding concerns around the quality of the installation of the fence. As a result of this it did carry out restorative fencing works at that time. During this complaint it says she was issued with a copy of the repairs policy citing her responsibility moving forwards.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 January 2024 to report that the fence dividing her property from the neighbour had blown down in strong winds. It had previously installed the fence following the removal of an outhouse at the adjacent property. She advised the installation had been poor and the issue was reoccurring.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident the following day, advising of her responsibilities and obligations when it came to any fence repairs. It was not obliged to repair the fence on the basis that it had previously done so. She raised a complaint the same day due to being unhappy with this response.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident of 17 January 2024 confirmed it had installed the fencing, but this did not mean it would carry out subsequent repairs. It had reviewed the fencing plan and carried out a boundary check. These confirmed that the resident was responsible for the fence. This was a reasonable and timely response in line with its repairs and complaints policies, but it could have prevented escalation by providing the documents confirming her responsibility.
  7. In seeking the escalation of her complaint on 22 January 2024 the resident requested to view the policy that confirmed she was responsible. She was questioning why it had undertaken repairs previously but was refusing on this occasion.
  8. On 1 February 2024, the landlord carried out a tenancy audit on the resident and established she had no vulnerabilities. We recognise that this was proactive of the landlord to ensure records were up to date and its decision was compliant with its policy.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident on 19 March 2024 explained its decision not to carry out repairs to the fence. It deemed there was no service failure. It cited the following:
    1. It would consider reports of dangerous fencing an emergency and attend to make safe, this could mean removal only and not repairs. As she had provided photos showing the panels led flat and confirmed this in correspondence it did not consider the incident an emergency.
    2. It recognised this would have caused the resident inconvenience but highlighted that adverse weather had the potential to cause unforeseen damage.
    3. The tenancy audit in February had confirmed no vulnerabilities and therefore deemed her ineligible for an enhanced repairs service.
    4. It offered support with liaising with her neighbour regarding a dog accessing her garden.
    5. It offered assistance with locating a tradesperson so that she could get the works completed.
  10. The response from the landlord was positive and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident of her options including replacing the fence herself and offering support with this. However, it failed to provide the policy as requested and could have considered providing the title plan to confirm the property boundaries. Nonetheless, it did provide the policy to her as part of another complaint thus there is no ongoing adverse effect of its earlier omission. It may also have considered offering to complete the repairs and re-charging the cost to the resident.
  11. We note that the landlord took 41 days to issue its stage 2 response to the resident. There is no evidence it requested an extension or informed the resident of a delay. This is not in line with its policy, or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states landlords must issue a final response within 20 working days. While the detriment is not excessive, we advise that it must ensure it complies with these requirements in future cases.
  12. The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns. It gave a clear explanation for its decision and reviewed her circumstances to establish if extra support was required. It could have given a better service by offering to complete the repair and charging the costs back, and by providing documentation confirming responsibility. Its late stage 2 response was also a shortcoming. However, we find the landlord responded appropriately overall in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the fence.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged garden fence.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with the repairs policy and title plan.