Cheshire West and Chester Council (202504153)

Background

1. In December 2024, a storm damaged one of the resident’s fence posts. The landlord initially said it would repair the damage but later changed its position. The resident replaced fencing removed by the landlord at a cost of £300.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for reimbursement of fencing costs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of fencing costs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of fencing costs

4. The resident believes that his tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for fence repairs. This was correct when the tenancy began in 2008. However, in 2017 the landlord acquired the property from a previous housing provider, and changes were made to the tenancy agreement, including that tenants became responsible for fencing repairs. The landlord would still attend emergency repairs to make the fencing safe where there was a health and safety risk, but any subsequent repairs would be the tenant’s responsibility.
5. It’s good practice for any key changes to be clearly communicated to tenants when properties are transferred to a new landlord. However, due to the length of time that has passed and the availability of records, this is not something we’re able to investigate now. We’ve therefore assessed the landlord’s actions in light of the current agreement.
6. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, storm damage is classed as an emergency, and the landlord should attend within 24 hours to make the property safe. In this case, the landlord attended the property within 24 hours, and its repair report stated that it would be responsible for replacing the fencing. This was misinformation that would’ve reasonably raised the resident’s level of expectation.
7. When the landlord attended the property, it measured all the fencing and removed 3 fence posts, 4 panels and the strengtheners, despite only one post having been damaged. Neither the repair report nor the landlord’s complaint responses explain why the landlord removed fencing elements it was not responsible for repairing. The landlord only offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of replacing the posts, despite not disputing that it removed the panels and strengtheners.
8. While we acknowledge that the resident is responsible for fencing repairs under the tenancy agreement, had the landlord not removed the fencing elements that were not damaged, the resident’s costs would’ve been much lower. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 in contribution towards the costs incurred by the resident.
9. In both complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the misinformation it gave the resident about the responsibility for the fencing and offered £50 compensation. This amount was disproportionate given the significance of the failing and was not in line with our compensation guidance. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £50 compensation, in addition to the £50 already offered, in line with our compensation guidance for failings which impacted the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

10. The landlord received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 6 January 2025 and acknowledged it in line with its complaints policy. Its policy states it will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. On 27 January 2025, it wrote to the resident saying that it would need to extend its response time by a further 10 working days. However, while the policy allows for extensions, by this point the landlord was already 5 working days outside its stage 1 response timescale, which was a failure and not in line with its complaints policy.
11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 April 2025, 42 days beyond its extended 20-working-day timescale. During this time, the resident involved his local MP to get a response. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delay, it did not offer compensation to try to put things right.
12. The stage 2 response was issued within the landlord’s policy timescale of 20 working days. However, the landlord missed a further opportunity to offer suitable redress for its significant delay at stage 1.
13. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £50 are appropriate where a landlord did not fully put things right. In ordering £50 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

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.