Thurrock Council (202342322)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with her daughter. The resident has autism, anxiety, depression and potential Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD).  Her daughter also has ADHD. After one of her fences was damaged in a storm in January 2024, she asked the landlord to repair it. The Landlord told her it was her neighbour’s repair responsibility and so it would not complete the repair. Her neighbour was also a tenant of the same landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s fence repair request.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s fence repair request.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Fence repair

6. The landlord’s decision not to repair the fence was in line with its repair policy and it communicated this to the resident promptly. However, it unreasonably delayed responding to the resident’s concerns that the fence posts were unsafe, and it was unclear how it reached this decision.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident within a reasonable timeframe given the timeframes in its policy and the Code.Therefore,its omission to acknowledge the complaint did not causedsignificant detriment to the residentto be service failure.

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.

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.

8. On 2 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to repair part of the fence after it was damaged in a storm. It had previously installed the fence following the removal of an outhouse at the neighbouring property. She said the installation was poor and the landlord had previously repaired the fence so should repair it again.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy states residents are responsible for dividing fencing. The landlord notes it will consider an enhanced repair service if the resident is vulnerable. The landlord has confirmed it considers a fence between 2 properties it owns, as is the case here, to be a dividing fence.
10. The landlord responded reasonably by investigating its repair responsibility and telling her the same day it considered this fence her neighbour’s repair responsibility. It has provided us with evidence of its fencing plan which supports its conclusion. It was not obliged to repair the fence on the basis it had previously done so.
11. The next day the resident questioned the decision. She sent the landlord a photo of a splintered fencing post saying she felt this was unsafe and could cause harm. The landlord did not respond to her concern the fence was left unsafe and reiterated it had no repair responsibility. In its stage 2 complaint response 2 months later, it commented the fence was not dangerous. However, we have not seen any evidence to support its consideration. The landlord can decline a request for an emergency repair, but it should promptly explain why it doesn’t consider the issue to be unsafe.
12. It is concerning the landlord did not visit when the resident first reported the post was unsafe, delayed giving its assessment of the post, and did not explain the basis for this decision. To remedy this, the landlord should write to the resident and us to explain why the fence post is safe and how it has determined this. Otherwise, it should inspect the fence post.
13. The landlord recorded the resident’s and her household specific vulnerabilities. When discussing this repair request with the landlord she said the lack of privacy was affecting her more than her neighbour due to her neurodiversity. She repeatedly told it the lack of fence was causing her distress. After she received its final response, the resident further requested some privacy measures reiterating the ongoing impact it had to her.
14. The landlord mentioned the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response. It noted the repair was decided in the individual circumstances related to her neighbour as they have repair responsibility for the fence. It explained in the past it agreed to carry out a fence repair for the resident and why it had not on this occasion. While this was appropriate, the landlord should have considered what it could do to mitigate the impact of this issue given the household’s vulnerability. It could also have considered whether as the resident told it this affected her mental health, it should have signposted her to any external support.
15. The resident has reported to us continuing distress and that she and her daughter feel uncomfortable using the garden due to the missing fence panel and lack of privacy. She has reported the landlord’s response made her feel as if it didn’t care about the impact on her and her family. We do not doubt that the resident felt this way and the frustration and inconvenience this may have caused. While we have not seen any failure in the landlord’s addressing her vulnerabilities, the responses could have benefitted from showing empathy about the resident’s circumstances.

16. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says it will acknowledge a complaint and escalation within 5 working days. This says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
17. The landlord has not provided us with records of its acknowledgements or the resident’s escalation request. We therefore cannot determine whether it acknowledged in line with its policy timeframes or responded fully to the resident’s concerns at stage 2.
18. At stage 1, the landlord responded 11 working days after the complaint, and at stage 2 24 days after its stage 1 response. Therefore, the landlord did not significantly delay outside of its policy timeframes and the Code.
19. The Code says landlords should keep a full record of the complaint including all original correspondence. While this is a failing, we cannot see it caused any detriment to the resident or an overall impact on the outcome of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should make sure to keep complete records of its complaints communication. This will help it show it follows its policies.

Communication

21. The landlord should consider whether it can increase the level of empathy in its responses to resident’s service requests and complaints.