Delta Housing Limited (202339614)

Decision
Case ID	202339614
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 March 2026

Background

1. The property is a bungalow, and land to the rear is currently under development. The resident has complained about the type of fencing surrounding his property, stating that it does not provide sufficient privacy or security in his garden because of the nearby construction.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for replacement fencing.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement fencing.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Request for replacement fencing

4. The landlord took 3 months to inform the resident of its position regarding the fencing and provided incorrect information during this period about the progress of his request. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these shortcomings and took reasonable steps to recognise the impact on the resident and to put things right.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the complaint within the timescales set out in its policy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £100 previously offered for its handling of his request for replacement fencing, if it has not already done so. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He explained that he had been requesting replacement fencing since September and had initially been told this was being arranged through a contractor, but he had now been informed it would not be going ahead. He said developers had begun construction behind his garden, which was causing him significant anxiety due to the lack of security and privacy.
22 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint, stating that it was unable to replace the fencing with wooden panels. It said it did not operate a fencing improvement programme, and any request to change the type of fencing would be at the resident’s own expense. It apologised for the communication errors following the resident’s initial enquiry and offered £50 compensation for this.
15 January 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was not in a financial position to pay for the fencing himself and felt he should not have to fund work to bring the landlord’s property up to a safe and secure standard. He reported that someone had stolen an item from his garden and explained that his fencing was not to the same standard as his neighbours’, which he believed left his home exposed to theft. He also explained that he had a heart condition and was awaiting surgery, and that the situation was causing him unnecessary stress and anxiety.
5 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint, stating that it was satisfied the stage 1 had been responded to in line with its relevant policies and procedures. It explained that fencing was intended to mark a boundary rather than provide security and that the existing chain‑link fencing was sufficient for this purpose. It confirmed that it had never owned the land being developed and had attempted, without success, to identify the developer. It advised the resident to discuss his concerns about privacy and security directly with the developer. The landlord also noted that not all neighbouring properties with wooden fencing were owned by it. It again apologised for the communication errors following the resident’s initial enquiry and increased its compensation offer to £100 for this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He said the chain–link fencing installed around his boundary offered no security or privacy while construction works were ongoing.
6 March 2026	During his contact with us, the resident reported that construction work at the rear of his property had recently resumed and that the fencing situation remained unchanged. As an outcome, he said he wanted the landlord to install wood‑panelled fencing, or to consider a compromise such as sharing the cost of replacement fencing or installing new fencing only at the rear of his property.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement fencing
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The landlord’s guide to repairs and maintenance states that it is responsible for making sure the property’s exterior is “safe, weatherproof and fit for purpose,” which includes responsibility for boundary walls, fencing and gates.
7. The resident first raised concerns about his garden fencing on 7 September 2023, stating that someone had stolen items from his garden and that the existing fencing was not secure. The landlord sent a contractor on 13 September 2023 who reported that the property was enclosed by 3‑foot chain‑link fencing and the only solution was to replace it with 6‑foot fencing. On 14 September 2023, the landlord sent internal correspondence confirming that the existing fencing did not require repair and asked for input from other departments. In a timeline provided by the landlord, it said it also contacted the resident on 14 September 2023 to explain its policy regarding fence repairs. However, due to gaps in the landlord’s records, we cannot confirm what it discussed with him.
8. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between 28 September 2023 and 1 December 2023 to request updates. He reported that construction had begun at the rear of his property and noted that all his neighbours had tall wooden fencing except him. On 2 of these occasions, the landlord told him that its contractor was dealing with his request and expected to complete the work by 8 December 2023. However, on 5 December 2023, the landlord stated that it would not replace the fencing and advised the resident to seek permission if he wished to carry out the work himself. This change in information likely caused disappointment and confusion for the resident, particularly as the landlord had previously told him the fence replacement was progressing. The landlord should have clarified its position at the earliest opportunity but instead took 3 months from the initial report to do so, which was unreasonable.
9. The resident raised further concerns with the landlord on 16 and 22 January 2024. He said that builders were looking directly into his bedroom window and that he needed replacement fencing to maintain his privacy. He also said the fencing should have been addressed before construction began and that the situation was affecting his health. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for him to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have not investigated this aspect further. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. In its final response on 5 February 2024, the landlord reiterated its position. It referred to the review panel meeting with the resident and explained that it had visited the property beforehand and reviewed the photos he provided. It stated that although a new fence could help reduce disruption from the construction work, it did not operate a programme to replace chain link fencing with wooden panels across its properties and would not therefore replace the fencing.
11. While this outcome was understandably disappointing for the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord carried out a full and thorough investigation at stage 2 and reached its decision in line with its published guidance and the discretion available to it. The tenancy agreement and repairs policy do not require the landlord to replace fencing that is not in disrepair. The landlord therefore exercised its discretion reasonably when it decided not to install a wooden fence, and its final response clearly explained its reasons.
12. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and the delay in providing the resident with a clear answer after his initial enquiry, and it apologised. In its final response, it increased its compensation offer to £100 in recognition of these failings. This offer was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

13. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in March 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code.
14. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. At stage 1, it would issue a response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At stage 2, it would arrange an appeal panel meeting within 15 working days of the escalation request and provide a response within 5 working days of the meeting. The landlord adhered to these timescales, and we have not identified any other failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

15. The landlord’s complaint handling was generally positive. Its responses were detailed, showing it had completed a thorough investigation. It acknowledged the shortcomings identified and apologised for them, offering compensation accordingly.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

16. There were some gaps in the landlord’s records, with certain events referenced in its complaint responses not reflected in its documented records. For example, in its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to a telephone call with its repairs team, and in its stage 2 response, to a visit completed prior to the panel review. However, there were no contemporaneous records for either event. This suggests there may be some areas where its record‑keeping processes could be strengthened.

Communication

17. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident, which resulted in him having to chase for updates. It also provided incorrect information about the progress of his request. This highlights the need for the landlord to strengthen its communication processes to ensure residents receive accurate and timely updates.