Southern Housing (202348554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348554

Southern Housing

18 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 concerns about the installation of a garden fence reducing the size of her garden.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom semi-detached house and has lived there since December 2021.
4. When the resident agreed to the tenancy on 21 December 2021, there was a missing section of fence in the back garden of the property. The resident confirmed that she was happy to accept the property before the landlord’s contractors had cleared the garden. The contractors completed a like for like replacement of the broken fence in early 2022.
5. On 30 June 2022, the resident queried the boundary line of the fence in the back garden with the landlord. She said that decking at the back of the neighbour’s garden belonged to her property. She later told the landlord that she had been told by a former resident of the property that the fence had been replaced incorrectly and that her neighbour had part of her garden. She said this was not fair and she wanted the garden back. The landlord escalated her concerns to the complaints team on 7 November 2022 as it had been unable to resolve the issue with the resident.
6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2023. It said that the landlord had contacted the land registry to identify if there was a specified area of land attributed to each property. However, the findings only showed the outer area which is owned by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord said it was unable to amend the boundary fence. The landlord awarded £50 in acknowledgement of the delay to responding to the complaint.
7. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 2 March 2023. She said she didn’t know why it had taken a year to find out the boundaries and she wanted a manager to deal with the case.
8. On 29 June 2023, the landlord provided the stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged that the garden boundary had been altered to favour the neighbour, and it was waiting to find out whether there was any historic agreement in place. The landlord said that once this had been established, it would contact the resident to advise of next steps. The landlord also increased the compensation offer of £50 to £90 to reflect delays, failed call backs and complaint handling issues.
9. Following the completion of the internal complaints process (ICP), on 4 January 2024 the landlord offered an additional compensation of £140 for miscommunication and inconvenience. On 8 March 2024, the landlord sent a final response to the resident. It said that it had completed its investigation, and it was unable to change the garden boundary as requested.
10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 March 2024 as she was unhappy about the handling of the boundary dispute and disagreed with the decision made. She wanted the boundary reinstating to the original plans.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of a garden fence reducing the size of her garden.

11. When the resident accepted the tenancy agreement for the property on 21 December 2022, she was aware that the fence in the back garden needed to be replaced. She told this office that the fence was replaced in line with the old fence, though a former resident of the property later told her that the decking area in the back section (her neighbours garden) should have been in her garden. The resident contacted the landlord about this on 30 June 2022 and questioned the boundary line of the fence that had been replaced.
12. It is unclear when the landlord replaced the fence of the resident’s property, though she told this office that the fence was replaced after she moved in at some point. This is consistent with evidence seen by this office, though the date is unconfirmed, it is accepted as being replaced in the beginning of 2022.
13. The landlord replied on the same day (30 June 2022) and said that the boundary from the photographs provided by the resident seemed to be correct against its maps, but it would send a surveyor to visit the property. Though the landlord booked a surveyor, there was no evidence that a surveyor attended the property. The response was timely and reasonable, however there was a service failure as the landlord failed to complete follow ups to ensure that the surveyor attended the property.
14. Between September 2022 and February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 14 times. The landlord failed to respond on multiple occasions, however it escalated her concerns to the complaints team on 7 November 2022 and provided a stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2023. During this period, internal emails noted that multiple teams had been involved and visited the property, but the resident was still disputing the responses. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any contact with the resident during this period which was not reasonable.
15. Within the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the voids team had repaired the damaged fence between the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property. The contractors replaced the fence as was previously. The landlord said it did not have any clear pictures of the garden area, so approached the land registry to see if there was a set area of land belonging to each property. The land registry only showed the outer area which was owned by the landlord overall and therefore the landlord was unable to amend the boundary fence. This was a reasonable response, as the landlord had taken action to check with the land registry for the boundaries on the properties. It is also important to note that it is within the landlord’s authority to choose where to place boundaries on its properties.
16. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 2 March 2023 and on 13 June 2023, the landlord completed its complaint review panel as part of it stage 2 complaint response. Within the meeting notes, the landlord repeated that it was unable to amend the boundary line. Following this meeting, an inspection was completed on 22 June 2023. The inspection acknowledged that the garden boundary had been significantly altered at some point and that the landlord would need to confirm if any historical agreements were in place between the 2 properties. The inspection noted this was potentially a tenant dispute that would need mediation and management from the housing team going forward. Although a boundary dispute of this nature is not a tenant dispute, mediation was a reasonable suggestion to attempt to improve relations between the parties involved.
17. The stage 2 complaint response was completed on 29 June 2023. Within the response, it explained it was unable to ascertain when the boundary change was made and was waiting for confirmation from the housing team about any historical agreements that reduced the size of the resident’s garden. Once it received confirmation, the resident would be contacted with next steps. It was reasonable that the landlord requested further information. However, it should have provided the resident with a timeframe of when its final decision could be expected.
18. Following the completion of the ICP, the resident complained about the ongoing situation on 9 July 2023. The landlord replied on 12 July 2023 and explained it was waiting for updates from the Housing Team and would provide an update by 19 July 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on multiple occasions to provide updates and extensions for further information when requested by the resident. This was an example of good practice in the case. As the stage 2 response lacked detail and timescales, the landlord was generally effective in explaining what information it needed and when it would contact the resident next.
19. The landlord made the decision to move the fence back to the original boundary line and attempted to do so on 20 September 2023. It was unable to so, however, as the neighbour refused access. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of this decision at this time.
20. A mediation referral was made on 17 October 2023 as the neighbour had had full use of the land for over 10 years. The resident’s request for the boundary to be changed had led to a dispute between the resident and the neighbour, however the lack of updates and communication did not help matters. There is also no evidence that the mediation occurred between the resident and the neighbour, though this is not considered a failing by the landlord as mediation can only occur if both parties are will to partake.
21. The landlord made no further attempts to change the boundaries and there was no further evidence of any action taken until the resident contacted the landlord on 28 December 2023 to attempt to raise another complaint. The lack of contact with the resident between September 2023 and December 2023 was unreasonable, considering the stage 2 response provided little detail and the landlord had missed multiple opportunities to provide the updates that it received.
22. On 28 December 2023, the resident requested further compensation which was provided on 4 January 2024 when the landlord offered an additional £140. This included £15 for miscommunication and £125 for inconvenience, time, and trouble. This was reasonable, considering the issue was still ongoing and the ICP had been completed over 6 months prior.
23. The resident refused the additional compensation and contacted the landlord on multiple occasions between January and March 2024 to dispute the boundary issue and the level of compensation. The landlord responded to her concerns and provided a final response on the issue on 8 March 2024. It said:
    1. It had completed a thorough investigation into the garden, including contacting previous residents who lived at the property. The resident had since disputed this, however from internal emails it had seen, it is accepted that the landlord did contact previous residents as described.
    2. In around 2000, the previous resident of the neighbour’s property installed the decking at the end of their garden. Therefore, the property boundary had remained as it was for 20-24 years.
    3. The current neighbour had used the garden for 11 years as this was how the property was when they moved in.
    4. In 2015, the landlord replaced the decking and the fencing in its current position due to a safety issue.
    5. The landlord was unable to make changes as requested as the fencing and decking area had been in the neighbour’s garden for approximately 20 years.
24. The landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate. It had investigated the boundary issues and explained the reasons for not returning the boundary to the original position. However, the poor communication and length of time it took to investigate was not acceptable and had impacted relations between the neighbours.
25. Importantly, we must point out that while the resident’s property had been reduced in size by the landlord / neighbour at some point historically, this was before the resident took up occupancy. At the time of signing her tenancy agreement, she confirmed with the landlord that the property was suitable for her in its current condition. At no point did the landlord remove garden space or change the boundary since the resident signed the tenancy agreement.
26. The Ombudsman notes that when the resident moved into the property on 21 December 2021, the fence in the back garden needed to be replaced. It is noted, nevertheless, that the replacement was positioned in line with the old fence. The resident therefore faced no detriment in relation to the garden, as she had never had access to a wider area.
27. During its stage 1 response, the landlord determined that the boundary would not change. On 11 September 2023, it then determined that the boundary should be moved. From October 2023 to March 2024, there was no evidence of additional factors that would change the landlord’s decision, however the landlord decided that the boundary line would remain as is. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations by leading her to believe it would move the fence and boundary after she had chased the matter for a significant period and then changed its mind. This was misleading and not acceptable.
28. Since the ICP, the landlord has provided the resident with additional land at the side of her house. However, she has told the Ombudsman that this has not resolved the issue as it was land that the landlord did not want to maintain. The landlord was not obligated to offer the resident additional land at the side of her property. It was reasonable to offer this land as a resolution and was a clear attempt by the landlord to put things right.
29. However, we consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the installation of the garden fence. The overall actions of the landlord were not acceptable as it was inconsistent in its decision making regarding the boundary issue throughout.
30. In accordance with our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £300 to the resident for its inconsistent decision making and poor communication during a prolonged period. Although the landlord acknowledged miscommunication and delays, the offer was not deemed to be proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

31. The resident formally escalated her concerns to the complaints team on 7 November 2022. Prior to this she had contacted the landlord 14 times between September 2022 and February 2023. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to provide updates to the resident during this period. There was also no evidence that the complaint was acknowledged which was a failure to follow complaint process which states that the landlord should acknowledge complaints in writing within 5 working days.
32. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 22 February 2023. This was a service failure as it was 74 working days after the complaint was logged and exceeds the time set out in the complaint policy. This sets out that a stage 1 response should be completed within 10 working days. The response acknowledged it’s failing and provided a consolatory payment of £50 in recognition of its delay in responding to the complaint. This was deemed an acceptable response at the time.
33. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 2 March 2023. She contacted the landlord on multiple occasions for updates but received no updates until the landlord acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 5 June 2023. This was not in line with the complaint policy which said it would acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days. In this instance, it was a clear service failing as the landlord acknowledged the complaint after 63 working days.
34. As part of the stage 2 complaint process, the landlord used a panel to review the decision. The panel meeting was completed on 13 June 2023, with the final written stage 2 complaint response provided 12 days later on 29 June 2023. This was a minor failing, as the complaint policy at the time said that the panel would respond with the decision within 10 working days.
35. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord explained it was waiting for information from the housing team before it could decide next steps. The landlord’s complaint policy said that in exceptional cases, it could defer a decision if it needed further advice. This was acceptable in this case, as it was still investigating the issue. The complaint policy also said that if, for any reason it needed to extend more than 20 working days, it would agree a response date with the resident. This was not agreed, and the resident waited a further 9 months for the final decision on 8 March 2023. This was a clear service failing as this was not agreed with the resident and limited updates were provided during the period.
36. The stage 2 response also acknowledged some failings and awarded a further £40 redress for failed call backs, delays to escalating to stage 2 and delay to the stage 2 response being sent. Though the failings were acknowledged, this redress was low in consideration of the timescale the issue had been ongoing and the fact that the issues had still not been resolved.
37. We consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord missed all timescales for complaint responses and failed to provide a full response to the complaint until over a year after the stage 2 complaint was escalated. It is acknowledged that the landlord provided redress on 3 occasions in this case, though this redress was not considered sufficient for the time taken to resolve the complaint.
38. In accordance with our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 for the failure to respond to complaints within policy timescales and failure to communicate extensions with the resident.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling reports of the resident’s concerns about the installation of a garden fence reducing the size of her garden.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for inconsistent decision making, poor communication and failure to manage the resident’s expectations throughout.
    2. Pay £590 in compensation directly to the resident. This includes:
       1. £300 to recognise the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the boundary fence.
       2. £150 for the failure to respond within policy timescales and failure to communicate extensions with the resident.
       3. £140 previously offered on 4 January 2024. This amount can be deducted if already paid.
42. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.