Worthing Homes Limited (202344486)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy his neighbour has installed 3 concrete posts on his side of the fence between their properties. He is considering purchasing the property in the future and is concerned about the loss of land. He feels the landlord should have taken steps to have the posts removed.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing fence posts in his garden.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing fence posts in his garden
   2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Fence posts

5. The landlord reasonably exercised its right as the landowner to allow the fence posts to remain in place. It communicated this decision to the resident clearly and at the earliest opportunity.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to log a complaint when it said it had. It then put unreasonable barriers in place before agreeing to log a formal complaint. This led to its stage 1 response being delayed unreasonably.

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.

7. The landlord has provided a copy of the title deed for the property. This does not indicate any ‘T’ markings on the boundaries, indicating that boundaries and fences are shared. Its Repairs Handbook states that fences within the property boundary between neighbouring homes are the resident’s responsibility.
8. The resident first contacted the landlord on 25 October 2023 to say he had arrived home that day to find the neighbour had installed fence posts on his side of the fence. The landlord asked him to provide photos, which he did on 27 October 2023. On 1 November 2023 it told him it had reviewed the photos alongside Google maps and concluded that the posts were not causing any obstruction. It said they could stay in place, and it would not contact the neighbour.
9. The resident responded the next day to say he was unhappy the landlord was willing to give up part of its land. It responded on 3 November 2023 to say someone else had reviewed the situation and agreed that the posts could stay. It said they were installed to support the fence from falling over and as the landowner it considered the matter closed. This was a reasonable response, and it communicated this to him in a timely manner.
10. On 6 November 2023 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with its response and wanted it treated as an official complaint. He told it he never said there was an obstruction but that the landlord should not be willing to give up 10cm of its land. The landlord responded on 8 November 2023. It said it was happy for the fence posts to stay in place as they were supporting the shared fence and the land space taken was minimal. It said it had written to the neighbour reminding them to contact it for future alterations.
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2023 to say that this response was not satisfactory. He said the fence was not shared and belonged to the neighbour. He felt the landlord had belittled the amount of space the posts had taken up. He said he was considering purchasing the property and did not want this to become a legally contested issue.
12. In its stage 1 response of 11 December 2023 the landlord reiterated its position that it would not be asking the neighbour to remove the posts. It said the posts were of benefit to both properties as they were securing an unstable fence. It told him that if he was to proceed with purchasing the property, it would be for his solicitor to advise on legal matters. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
13. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 21 December 2023. He said it was wrong for the landlord to say the fence posts benefitted both parties as he no interest in his neighbour’s fence.
14. In its stage 2 response of 26 January 2024 the landlord explained that the title deeds showed that the boundary was shared. The neighbour should have asked its permission before making changes, but it would have granted this as the posts were securing a shared fence. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, given its shared interest in the fence.
15. We appreciate that the resident may wish to purchase the property in the future and is concerned about the position of the boundary. However, as the property currently belongs to the landlord, it has the right to make decisions about any boundary concerns. It reviewed the title deed and communicated its position promptly and clearly to the resident.

16. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord sent its stage 1 response 25 working days after the resident raised the complaint (6 November to 11 December 2023) – outside its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. it sent its stage 2 response 23 working days after he requested escalation (21 December 2023 to 26 January 2024) – slightly outside its policy timescale of 20 working days.
17. Despite confirming to the resident it had raised a complaint, the landlord initially failed to send him a formal response. When he challenged this, it said he needed to provide more details about his complaint, despite him already having made this clear. It put barriers in the way of him raising a complaint and did not act in line with its policy. This led to an unnecessary delay in it sending a formal stage 1 response. Its stage 2 response was also slightly delayed, although we appreciate that he requested escalation just before the Christmas period.
18. We have made our compensation award in line with our compensation guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and put it right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was adequate to allow it to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns appropriately. However, it has been unable to provide us with a copy of the letter it sent to the neighbour confirming retrospective permission for the fence. This has not impacted the outcome of the complaint, but the landlord should ensure it keeps clear records for an appropriate length of time.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication in this case overall was reasonable. Although there were some delays in it responding formally to the complaint, it responded to the resident’s initial enquiry promptly and clearly.