Incommunities Limited (202328346)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328346

Incommunities Limited

10 October 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlords handling of repairs to a garden fence.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. During the complaint events the resident was in a process to buy the property which was completed in May 2024. The resident shares a dividing fence with his neighbour, who is a tenant of the same landlord.
  2. The landlord’s contractor contacted the landlord on 23 February 2023 and said that in order to complete another work at the property, they had removed a small part of the fence. In July 2023 as part of another complaint the landlord agreed to repair the fencing. On 14 September 2023, the resident said to the landlord that the contractor had replaced a small section, but the full repair had not been completed.
  3. The landlord booked a contractor to further repair the fence panel on 9 October 2023, but the contractor did not attend according to the resident. The resident raised this with the landlord and advised he was unhappy as he had taken a day off work. The landlord’s notes show the resident chased the repair in November 2023 and it attended on 6 December 2023. However, the work was not marked as completed.
  4. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the fence repair on 8 December 2023. The landlord spoke to the resident on 19 December 2023, advising it had repaired a hole in the fence the previous day. It stated it could not replace the full fence panel because of the position of a pond (which the resident had installed in the garden without the landlord’s permission) and asked the resident to remove it. The resident refused to remove the pond.
  5. On 20 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, accepting that the contractor had removed a portion of the fence to facilitate another work. It said this had been resolved along with a small hole in the fence panel. The landlord advised it had attended on 11 December 2023 to assess if a new fence panel was required. It reiterated to replace the fence panel safely; the resident would need to remove the pond. It explained this was necessary because the actual structure of the fence was needing to be replaced.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 16 January 2023 advising he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The resident wanted the fence panel replaced and compensation for the “stress” caused. There was no evidence to show the resident had previously asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 January 2024 asking it to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged his request to escalate the complaint on 29 January 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024, upholding its stage 1 response. It highlighted that the pond removal was being handled by the landlord’s neighbourhood team under its permission policy.

 

Assessment and findings

Repairs to garden fence

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the home in good repair. It includes fencing and gates within this section. It also states it will carry out repairs within reasonable timescales and in consultation with the resident.
  2. The landlords’ responsive repair policy requires completing routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation for damage caused to their property by the landlord or a third party (contractor) acting on behalf of it falls within the public Liability guidance. The policy further states it cannot make a payment under its compensation policy if it is unable to deliver services because of circumstances out of its control.
  4. On 23 February 2023, one of the landlord’s contractors notified the landlord that they had removed a section of the garden fence to carry out some works. Due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the section that was removed by the contractor, the landlord completed works on 14 September 2023 to fix the part of the fence that had been previously removed. Having considered everything, we do not consider the landlord’s actions to be reasonable. This is because it took the landlord over 6 months to attend the property to complete the repair. The landlord’s responsive repair policy outlines that routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days; therefore, the timeframe the landlord completed this repair was significantly outside of the timeframe specified under the policy. This was unreasonable.
  5. It is noted that on 14 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that the repair had been poorly completed. The resident also outlined that there was a hole left in the fence. In reviewing the evidence, it is unclear which works the landlord’s agent conducted on 14 September 2023. According to the landlord, its contractor replaced the fence that had been removed (from February 2023) in September 2023. It also noted that the hole in the fence was a separate issue. According to the resident, the issue remained outstanding in addition to the hole in the fence.
  6. In any event, since the resident was dissatisfied with the works, we would expect the landlord to attend the property within a reasonable period to assess the works to ensure everything was reasonably completed. Additionally, we would also expect the landlord to attend to ensure any outstanding issues (hole in the fence) were resolved.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord was due to attend the property on 9 October 2023 to complete further works. According to the landlord’s version of events and email evidence, its contractors attended; however, the resident would not allow them to carry out works because he was not satisfied with the works they were completing. According to the resident’s version of events and independent evidence, the resident contacted the landlord on 9 October 2023 to inform it that no contractors attended the property. It is unknown if the resident sent this information to the landlord prior to it attending the property on the same day.
  8. Under the circumstances, it is unclear what happened at the property on 9 October 2023 so a definitive finding cannot be made regarding whether there was no access or whether the landlord failed to attend. The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord and requested an update in November 2023. The resident was unhappy he had to take another day off work and suggested he arrange the repair and bill the landlord. He also raised security concerns due to a hole left. Following this, the landlord completed works to the fence on 18 December 2023.
  9. While we appreciate that works could not be completed on 9 October 2023, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to reach out to the resident so another appointment could be arranged earlier to complete the works. The resident was clearly contacting the landlord and engaging because he wanted the repairs to be completed; therefore, it is our view the landlord could have attended earlier than 18 December 2023. Had the landlord been proactive in contacting the resident and discussing any concerns he may have had, it is likely it could have rebooked another appointment in October 2023 or early November 2023.
  10. In its complaint responses, the landlord stated it had assessed the fence panel on 11 December 2023 and agreed to replace it. We have not seen evidence of whether the panel was damaged by the contractors or whether it was just rot (which would pose no responsibility on the landlord to complete the repair). However, it was a reasonable step for the landlord to agree to complete the repair.
  11. However, to replace the panel safely, the landlord explained it had been advised by its contractors that the resident would need to remove the pond installed by him (as it was preventing safe access). It is not for the Ombudsman to determine if the contractor’s assessment was correct, but whether the landlord acted fairly and in line with its own policies and procedures. In this case it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its contractors that the pond needed to be removed to allow a safe replacement.
  12. Additionally, it appropriately explained to the resident the reasons for the required removal and requested the resident to complete this before attending the fence repair. The residents’ refusal to do so directly prevented the landlord from completing the fence panel replacement and from fulfilling its obligations. Therefore, we cannot reasonably hold the landlord responsible.
  13. While the landlord took a number of appropriate steps in response to the complaint and agreed to replace the panel (subject to the pond removal), it failed to fully address all the issues raised by the resident. It did not acknowledge the extent of the delays for the initial fence repair (the one removed by the contractor), the missed appointment and the resident’s request to make his own repair arrangements. As such, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge the impact on the resident and put things right during its complaints process.
  14. Since its final response, the resident purchased the property (in May 2024). We do not have sufficient information about the process of purchasing the property and when it started. However, during stage 2 discussions the resident advised the landlord that he was in the process of purchasing and therefore, he was not willing to remove the pond. The purchasing process affects the landlord’s obligation to complete repairs, and, in this case, it is unclear of when the repairs obligations were affected. However, as the property is now owned by the resident and he is no longer in landlord-tenant relationship, the Ombudsman will not order a repair.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that the landlord will provide a stage one complaint response within 10 working days. Following escalation to stage two, the policy sets out that a response will be issued to the resident within 20 working days from the date of escalation. Additionally, the landlord’s policy also sets out that an acknowledgement of the complaint will be issued within 2 working days.
  2. When the resident complained to the landlord on 8 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage one response on 20 December 2023. This was issued in 8 working days; therefore, the response was in line with the landlord’s policy for a stage one response.
  3. On 22 January 2024, we requested that the landlord escalate the complaint and issue a response following the resident’s contact. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 29 January 2024; the landlord then provided its stage two response on 26 February 2024.
  4. Under the circumstances, the landlord’s acknowledgement email was issued in 5 working days instead of 2 working days; however, we have not found a failing because the landlord may not have known that it needed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 immediately due to the deadline set out in the email issued by us. With this being said, the landlord’s stage two response was issued outside of the policy timeframe because it was issued in 25 working days instead of 20 working days. Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord’s complaint responses failed to fully address all the issues raised by the resident.
  5. With the above in mind, it is our view there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is due to the minor delay at stage two as detailed above and the failure to fully acknowledge its failings in the complaint responses. Under the circumstances, we expect landlords to set out all relevant failings in their complaint responses and provide learnings to the resident to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated. We also expect landlords to award proportionate compensation to put things right. The landlord’s failure to do this was unreasonable.
  6. To put things right, compensation of £50 has been awarded. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance which states that £50 to £100 is reasonable where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the garden fence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £300 compensation. This is broken down as:

–          – £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in the handling of the repair to the garden fence.

–          £50 for the failures in relation to the complaint handling.

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for its failures.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.