London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202335298)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with a sole use garden. In Autumn 2023 she told the landlord one of the concrete fence posts in the garden was “crumbling” and she felt it was unsafe. It inspected and agreed there was an issue however it said dividing fences and posts were her responsibility to repair. As there was a concern about safety it offered to remove the post, but not replace it. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues with a fence post.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues with a fence post.
   2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

Fence post

4. The landlord’s decision to not replace the fence post was in line with its repairs policy.

Complaint Handling

5. The landlord complied with its complaints policy in how it handled stage 1 of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has not been able to fully assess its handling of stage 2 of her complaint due to a lack of evidence.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is only responsible for the repair and maintenance of boundary fences. It defines this as a fence that borders a public footpath or other public land. It says it is not responsible for repairs to dividing fences between neighbouring properties.
7. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her concerns about the fence post. She felt as both she and it had concerns about the safety of the post in its current condition, it should either repair the post or replace it. She disagreed with its decision to only offer to remove the post.
8. In the landlord’s complaint response, it explained it inspected the fence post shortly after the resident first reported her concerns. It agreed the post was in a poor condition and was a safety concern but maintained it was her responsibility to repair or replace it as it was part of a dividing fence. It said this was in line with both the terms of her tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. However, as there were safety concerns it offered to remove the post but reiterated that she would then need to replace it.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement was with a different housing provider that the landlord went on to acquire in 2019. Her agreement does not specify whether she or the landlord is responsible for boundary fence repairs. It was therefore inappropriate for it to say its decision to not replace the post was in line with the terms of her agreement.
10. Nevertheless, the landlord’s decision was reasonable as it was in line with its policy. It appropriately inspected the post due to the resident’s safety concerns. The inspection found the post was beyond repair and needed replacement. Despite its policy saying the resident was responsible for rectifying the issue, it showed good practice in offering to remove the post to eliminate the safety issue. It decision to not replace the post, however, was reasonable as it was in line with its policy and it clearly explained this in its response.
11. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable. While it should not have said its decision to not replace the post was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, its decision was supported by its repairs policy. It appropriately responded to the resident’s safety concerns and showed good practice in offering to remove the post despite its policy to ensure her safety.

12. The landlord’s complaint policy has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt and stage 2 escalations within 20 working days of receipt.
13. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code from April 2022 (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
14. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 10 working days. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
15. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s stage 2 escalation or a confirmed date when she escalated her complaint. We are therefore unable to fully assess how the landlord handled this stage of her complaint. However, the date of its response means it complied with its 20-working day policy timescale for an escalation request made on or after 1 December 2023.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord did not provide records relating to the resident’s stage 2 escalation, which has impacted our ability to fully assess part of its complaint handling. The landlord is reminded to ensure it keeps robust complaint records going forward.

Communication

17. Overall the landlord’s communication was good. It kept in regular contact with the resident and clearly explained its decisions.