Home Group Limited (202330354)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started in July 2019 and ended when the resident moved to new accommodation around May 2025. The neighbouring property is owner-occupied. The previous neighbour had permission to construct a driveway on their own front garden, on the understanding that the boundary between the 2 properties remained intact. After the neighbouring property was sold in July 2022, the new neighbour removed the railway sleepers that were marking the boundary, without consulting the resident or the landlord. This led to a dispute between the parties.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a boundary issue and the resident’s request for a dividing fence.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of a boundary issue and the resident’s request for a dividing fence.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord does not dispute that there were multiple failings in its handling of a boundary issue and the resident’s request for a dividing fence, which caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The landlord did put things right for the resident but not until after we accepted the complaint for investigation.
6. There were multiple failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident first contacted the landlord in August 2022 to report a boundary dispute with the neighbour. The landlord inspected the property in September 2022 and agreed that the neighbour had breached the boundary. It then wrote to the neighbour, advising that it was intending to reinstate the boundary by installing a fence. However, the landlord was not proactive between October 2022 and March 2023 in progressing this. And it failed to keep the resident updated, which resulted in the resident repeatedly having to chase the landlord for updates. Inadequate communication continued to be an issue throughout the timeframe of the complaint.
8. The landlord inspected the boundary on 14 April 2023. The landlord made a verbal agreement with the neighbour in relation to the positioning of a new boundary fence. And then raised a works order on 28 April 2023 for its contractor to install a fence. The landlord’s contractor attempted to install the fence on multiple occasions between May 2023 and May 2024. However, it was prevented from doing so by interference from the neighbour. The landlord was not proactive in dealing with the neighbour’s behaviour over this timeframe. And it failed to set up an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case, after the resident reported the situation with the neighbour had escalated, which would have been in line with its ASB policy and procedure.
9. The fence was installed on 22 May 2024, which was nearly 22 months after the resident first reported the issue. The resident was caused significant distress and inconvenience over this timeframe.
10. We recognise that it would have taken some time for the landlord to carry out inspections, obtain supporting information, seek advice from its legal advisors, liaise with all parties regarding the boundary, and facilitate works to install the new boundary fence. And that the case was made more challenging by obstruction by the neighbour. However, the landlord does not dispute there was some avoidable delay in its handling of the matter, inadequacies in its communications, and that it did not follow its ASB procedure.
11. Where a landlord has admitted failings, our role is to consider whether the landlord acted fairly, put things right, and learned from outcomes, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
12. The landlord made a commitment in the stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2024 to install the fence, which it did shortly after. It also said it would support the resident with moving, which it did. The landlord said it recognised there were delays progressing the matter to resolution. But its response suggests this was because of the neighbour, rather than any failings by it. If it did identify any failings or learning at this stage, this was not communicated in its response. And no offer of redress was made. However, we note that it had spoken to the resident on 25 April 2024 and believed she was happy with the action it was taking.
13. The landlord showed fairness after the resident said she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 complaint resolution, by agreeing to make a discretionary offer of compensation. It offered £380 compensation shortly after, to try to put things right. The landlord said this compensation was to recognise failings in its handling of the matter, including delays, inadequate communication, and took into account the impact to the resident. But it did not accept at this stage, there had been any failing in its response to the resident’s reports about ASB.
14. The landlord proactively reviewed its handling of the case in June 2025 after we accepted the case for investigation. The landlord identified additional failings, including that it had not followed its own ASB procedure. And made an additional offer of compensation amounting to £350, enhancing its compensation for impact and in recognition of its failure to follow its ASB procedure. The landlord provided us with a copy of its case review, showing learning taken from the complaint, consistent with our own observations.
15. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation (£730) was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in this case. Our remedies guidance, published on our websites, suggests awards in this range where there have been failings by the landlord, which have had a significant impact on a resident.
16. We have concluded that the landlord tried to be fair, put things right, and learned from complaint outcomes. However, we cannot find reasonable redress, as the landlord did not satisfactorily resolve the matter for the resident until after we accepted the complaint for investigation. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a boundary issue and the resident’s request for a dividing fence.
17. The landlord must pay the £730 compensation that it previously offered, directly to the resident, if it has not already done so. It must also write to the resident setting out the learning it has taken from the complaint and the steps it has taken, or will take, to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Codes in this case are the 2022 and 2024 editions. The landlord had published complaints policies, which complied with the terms of these Codes, in relation to response timescales.
19. The resident sent the stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 24 August 2023 by post. The postal tracking information confirms that the landlord received the resident’s complaint the next day. The landlord did not send the stage 1 complaint acknowledgment within the 5 working day expected timescale. This was because the complaint was not passed onto the relevant department to be logged as a complaint, delaying resolution of the matter for the resident.
20. The resident was caused avoidable time and trouble on 7 September 2023 chasing the landlord for the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint 5 working days later. It asked the resident to clarify the reason for the complaint because it could not locate the original copy. The resident clarified her reasons on 14 September 2023. It would have helped manage the resident’s expectations if it had written to the resident following this, confirming its understanding of the complaint and setting out its timeline for response. As it did not seek a complaint extension, the landlord should have issued the stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This would have been 21 September 2023. However, it did not.
21. The landlord did issue a stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2023 in reply to a different complaint raised by the resident around the same time. We note the landlord referenced the action it was taking to address the boundary dispute within this response. This suggests the landlord amalgamated the complaints or was confused.
22. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 27 November 2023 if it did not install the new boundary fence by the end of day. It would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to have logged her complaint at stage 2, given the fence was not installed.
23. The resident raised her first enquiry with us on 20 December 2023 after the landlord failed to issue the stage 2 acknowledgement. She contacted the landlord on 8 January 2024 expressing disappointment that it had not escalated the complaint as she had requested. The landlord made internal enquiries following this but it did not reply to the resident, leaving her unclear of its intentions.
24. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response about its handling of the boundary dispute on 4 April 2024 following our intervention. And then immediately committed to investigating the matter at stage 2, which it issued on 3 May 2024. This was one day outside the timescale we gave the landlord.
25. Overall, there were multiple failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints, which caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
26. The landlord must pay £200 compensation directly to the resident, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been failures by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but where there was no permanent impact.

Learning

27. The landlord did not take any learning from the complaint during the timeframe of the complaint. But as previously referenced, it did carry out a comprehensive case review after we accepted the case for investigation. The landlord’s learning is summarised as follows:
    1. Policy adherence. Where a resident reports ASB or harassment, its staff should follow its ASB or neighbourhood management policy. It provided staff training on both policies in March 2024. But committed to reminding staff to consistently apply these policies.
    2. Communication. It must improve how it communicates with resident’s especially regarding next steps and resolution options. It committed to reminding staff of the importance of this.
    3. Empathy and support. Its staff must recognise the emotional impact disputes can have on residents and ensure that appropriate advice is given. It committed to reminding its staff to be empathetic, acknowledge a resident’s experiences, and offer support or signposting where possible.
28. We would encourage the landlord to consider how it will monitor and satisfy itself that these actions have resulted in the required improvements.
29. It was reasonably foreseeable in this case, that the neighbour might prevent its contractor from installing the fence. The landlord should have supported its contractor on-site rather than leaving it to manage alone. This was unfair and likely contributed to the delays. A recommendation is made for the landlord to consider implementing a procedure for accompanying contractors to jobs where challenging behaviour is expected.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord may have failed to provide us with a complete set of records, as the resident was able to recall numerous interactions that were not documented by the landlord. The landlord should investigate why there were gaps in its evidence and take steps to ensure that a complete set of records is provided for future cases.

Communication

31. The landlord did not keep the resident proactively informed of the measures it was taking to address the boundary issue, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates, and it did not always respond to the resident’s queries. The landlord has itself identified that its communication was inadequate and committed to a course of action to address this.