Amplius Living (202422533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422533

Amplius Living

5 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 response to the resident’s concerns about a gate and fencing to the side of her home.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced via a mutual exchange and deed of assignment on 24 October 2023. The property is a bungalow. There is a gate connected to the resident’s back garden fence which leads into her neighbour’s garden.
3. On 27 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord with concerns that her neighbour was going to erect a fence which blocked her garden gate. She stated she was informed that she had access through this gate, which goes into the neighbour’s garden. During the call with the landlord, the resident was told to inform the neighbour that he needed to keep the gate there for her access.
4. On 10 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She stated she was under the impression the back garden gate was a communal gate for both her and the neighbour to use. She explained the neighbour had locked the gate from his side, denying her access. The neighbour had informed her nobody had shared access, and he was planning on erecting a fence.
5. On 31 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the neighbour granting him permission to erect a fence.
6. During March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord on three occasions about her neighbour erecting a fence where her back gate was. She was unhappy that this blocked her gate and stated she would have no access out of her garden in the event of an emergency. She had never used the gate, however she explained it being there was important for safety. She stated that when completing the mutual exchange this should have been mentioned to her. She stated that during the mutual exchange she was informed there were ongoing issues with the gate and that the neighbour was previously refused permission for fencing to be erected.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. It acknowledged the decision to board up the gate was not discussed with the resident and this caused her distress. It explained it would contact the local authority and ask it to consider her for a property transfer back to the area in which she used to live. It also offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the distress caused.
8. On 8 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord seeking to be moved. It explained that it would not be able to move her, but it did send supporting letters to assist in her move.
9. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 August 2024. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 September 2024. This explained:
   1. It had carried out an inspection of the property and other properties in a similar mid-terrace situation to the resident so it could understand other access routes on the street. It found that none of the properties had access via the gardens. The erection of the fence meant the property was now the same as others on the street.
   2. It recognised that the property layout was now unsuitable to the resident for personal reasons and explained it had written to the local authority to support her application for re-housing.
   3. It had also asked its relocations team to get in contact with the resident to ensure she provided all relevant documents to the local authority to enable her to reapply to the housing register.
   4. It would also ensure she was advertising her property correctly on the mutual exchange website.
10. On 25 September 2024 the landlord contacted the local council to ask if it could increase her banding. It provided supporting evidence for its request and explained the impact the erected fence was having on the resident. The council informed the landlord that she was not a local resident or had local connections in the area. For this reason, it closed her application. The landlord reiterated this information to the resident.
11. During October 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it could look into an internal move for her. It requested additional information from the resident in order to support her. The resident stated she did not see the point as the only support she had was in the area which the council denied.
12. We spoke with the resident during August 2025. She confirmed the fence is still in place and she does not have access to the back gate. She is seeking for the fence to be removed. She explained initially she was seeking to be moved but cannot cope with another move as it is mentally and physically stressful. Furthermore her only support lives in the area.

Assessment and findings

13. This investigation looks at the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s fence and the blocked gate. We have considered if the landlord gave clear information at the mutual exchange about its position regarding the fence, and whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures.
14. Around 2 months after the resident signed the deed of assignment, her neighbour was given permission by the landlord to erect a fence. The fence was then erected during March 2024. The fence was put in front of a gate which had been in place for 10 years prior to the resident moving there. This gate allowed access into the neighbour’s garden.
15. We understand the landlord’s position is the gate had been installed by a previous tenant over 10 years ago who no longer resides at the property. This was done without the landlord’s permission as the prior tenant and neighbour were friends.
16. The landlord’s position is that it will not agree to access for a back gate. However the resident would like there to be a gate here.
17. The resident stated that during her mutual exchange she was not informed that a fence would be put up. She said she was told there were ongoing issues concerning the gate, and that the neighbour had asked to install a fence in the past but this was rejected.
18. We have reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement and there is no mention of a communal or shared access gate. We have also reviewed the mutual exchange documents and there is no mention of a communal gate. These state the resident will accept the present decorative condition of the property and garden as seen. This document was signed on 10 October 2023.
19. We have not seen a copy of a mutual exchange policy for the landlord. Its website provides guidance for mutual exchanges, however it does not specify the landlord’s requirements when the resident is carrying out a swap. It is our view that the landlord should make every reasonable effort to ensure residents are aware of any issues affecting the condition or use of their home. At the time of the mutual exchange in October 2023, the gate in question had been installed by a previous tenant of the resident’s home over 10 years earlier, but without the landlord’s approval. It was therefore an unauthorised structure.
20. During the mutual exchange, the landlord should have explained to the resident that the gate was not authorised and could not be relied upon as a permanent feature of the garden. This would have given the resident a clear understanding of the landlord’s position and avoided the impression that the gate formed part of the property under the tenancy agreement she had signed. It also would have ensured the resident was able to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the swap. Without this full knowledge, the resident unknowingly agreed to a move and later discovered this issue which impacted the enjoyment of her home.
21. We see the neighbour was given permission to erect the fence after the resident had moved in. However, there is no record to reflect that the landlord spoke to the resident about this. It would have been best practice for the landlord to inform the resident of its position concerning the gate when it gave permission to the neighbour.
22. We have reviewed the permissions email which was sent to the neighbour on 31 January 2024. It states:
    1. “If you erect fencing which adjoins a neighbouring property you must communicate with the occupants about the work you are undertaking. The fencing must not block any of your neighbours’ light.”
    2. “If there is a shared access or right of way via your garden you must seek our advice before work commences. Your new fencing/gates cannot obstruct your neighbours or their visitors using the right of way.”
23. In this instance we understand the neighbour had communicated to the resident about the work that he was doing. He also stated this was not considered to be shared access as the gate should have never been there. The landlord has also confirmed the gate was erected over 10 years ago without permission.
24. The resident explained that she has previous trauma from when she was held captive in a domestic abuse situation. She stated this is why it was important that she moved to a place which had two exits. We understand this information was not previously known to the landlord until she raised the complaint. She also explained that for her medical condition it was important she had 2 exits. The landlord was not at fault for not taking this information into account as there is no evidence it was aware of this at the time of the mutual exchange.
25. When the resident informed the landlord she wanted to be moved in April 2024. It took the following steps:
    1. Wrote to her old local authority on her behalf and provided supporting documents.
    2. Explained it could look into an internal move for her.
26. Considering the resident’s circumstance and distress, the landlord took reasonable action and proactive steps to assist the resident when she wanted to move. The landlord’s actions were appropriate.
27. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where there is exceptional worry, distress or inconvenience it will compensate £50 for minor and £100 for major distress or inconvenience. The policy does not give examples of what would be considered minor or major distress. In this instance, during its stage 1 response it offered the resident £50 compensation.
28. When reviewing the correspondence between the resident and the landlord, it is clear the events have caused the resident distress. However we are satisfied the landlord has taken appropriate steps to remedy this. It acknowledged its failure and apologised and offered £50 compensation which was in line with its compensation policy. Overall we find the amount to be fair and proportionate.
29. The resident said she is not seeking to be moved due to the stress. The landlord is not obliged to remove the fence and therefore the matter remains unresolved for the resident. We understand how distressing this must be for the resident given her past and the impact she states it is having on her health. Therefore we are recommending the landlord speaks to the resident again to discuss her housing options, and see if there is any other support it can offer.
30. In summary, while the landlord was correct that the back gate was never an authorised exit, there was a missed opportunity to make this clear during the mutual exchange process. It then failed to give consideration to the resident’s circumstances or notify her of its approval for the fence during January 2024. This caused a considerable amount of distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did take appropriate steps in supporting the resident after the fence was put up. It also offered compensation which we found was fair and proportionate to recognise the distress caused to her. Therefore we have found a reasonable offer of redress was made.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the resident’s concerns about a gate and fencing to the side of her home.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation.

32. The landlord to consider what further assistance it can give in supporting the resident, including any appropriate referrals for support. It should also discuss the resident’s housing options with her within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.