Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202437364)

Background

1. The resident lives in a semi-detached bungalow. The property is accessible via a shared pathway, which also leads to access to the resident’s garden and her neighbour’s garden. The resident submitted an application to install a fence to the side of the property. The landlord refused permission.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision about the resident’s request to install a fence.
3. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision about the resident’s request to install a fence.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s decision about the resident’s request to install a fence

6. The landlord’s decision was consistent with its guidelines on alterations and improvements. It provided the resident with a clear explanation of the reasons for its decision.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints procedure.

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.

What we have not looked at

8. The resident’s complaint to the landlord included issues relating to permission for the fence and the external bedroom door. However, in the escalation request, the resident did not raise the bedroom door and this was not therefore, considered at stage 2. We can only investigate matters which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. For this reason, this investigation focuses solely on the landlord’s decision regarding the resident’s request to install a fence.

The landlord’s decision in response to the resident’s request to install a fence

9. The resident said in her complaint the landlord informed her she could install the fencing prior to the submission of her application.
10. On receipt of this information, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate with the staff member the resident said had provided her with permission. The landlord reported the outcome to the resident. It confirmed the staff member understood the resident intended to install the fence next to the pathway and front garden. The landlord also confirmed it could not give verbal permission in any case, as such requests must be made to it in writing.
11. The tenancy agreement states that a resident may not make alterations without the landlord’s permission. Therefore, the landlord’s response that it could not give verbal permission was in line with the terms of the tenancy.
12. According to the information published on its website about improvements and alterations, the landlord states it will not permit any changes that impact areas shared between neighbouring properties.
13. The evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates it reviewed the resident’s application and consulted with its internal team to assess the application and the reasons the provided. The landlord also visit the property on 23 October 2024 and consulted with the local authority. It received confirmation from the local authority the pathway area was shared, as confirmed in the information within land ownership records.
14. The landlord confirmed in its response to the complaint it could not grant permission for several reasons, one of which was due to the fact the pathway was shared. This decision was in line with the guidance it provides in relation to its consideration of requests for alterations and improvements.
15. The resident said in her complaint, other properties on the road had fencing. We are unable to comment on if, or why, the landlord installed or repaired fences at neighbouring properties. We would expect a landlord to ensure it had a fair approach by investigating if and why it had granted permissions for fence installations previously and in similar circumstances. However, landlords are limited in the information they can share due to data protection requirements.
16. There is evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s point about other properties on the road. It acted reasonably by explaining in its response that, one of the properties in question was not part of its housing stock and it was unable to share details in relation to fencing at the other properties.
17. Overall, the evidence demonstrates the landlord appropriately assessed the resident’s request in line with its own guidance. It also reviewed the relevant property information to confirm the pathway was shared. As a result, it determined putting up fencing would not be appropriate under its guidance on improvements and alterations. These factors lead to a determination of no maladministration in the landlord’s decision making in relation to the substantive point of the resident’s complaint.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the complainant should then receive a formal response at stage 1 within 10 working days and if escalated, at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
19. The landlord provided its complaint responses at both stages of the process within the timescales set out in its policy and in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord has demonstrated good record keeping in relation to the matter we investigated in this complaint.

Communication

21. We have seen evidence the landlord communicated effectively with the resident regarding its reasons for refusing permission to install the fence. It provided a clear explanation of its decision.