Incommunities Limited (202346910)

Decision
Case ID	202346910
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Incommunities Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. The resident asked the landlord to erect higher fencing in his front garden, as he felt the area was not secure for his children. The landlord agreed to do so given a rear extension was going to reduce garden space to the back of the property. However, the resident is unhappy with the time taken to install the fencing. The resident also reported repairs to his kitchen, flooring, windows and doors. He complained about the landlord’s response and that repairs to the kitchen and windows remain outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the windows.
   2. Installing front garden fencing.
   3. Repairs in the resident’s kitchen.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of installing front garden fencing.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s kitchen.
   4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows

5. The resident’s concerns about the window repairs have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, we have made the decision not to investigate this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of installing front garden fencing.

6. After the landlord agreed to install the fencing, it failed to keep the resident updated. This was despite that it agreeing to do so and having the relevant information available. This led to the resident spending time and trouble chasing updates.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s kitchen

7. The landlord agreed to raise repairs for the kitchen in its stage 1 response. It failed to do so. This led to a delay in completing the work and the resident needed to spend time and effort to chase the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

8. There were minor delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. However, we have seen no evidence of detriment to the resident as a result.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £250. This is made up of: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication about the fencing. £150 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of kitchen repairs.	No later than 27 March 2026

Recommendation

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

Our recommendation

Given the resident’s comments that repairs in the kitchen remain outstanding, the landlord should contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The inspection should be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed.   What the inspection should achieve The landlord should ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the kitchen of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report should set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the issues in the kitchen Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2023	The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its refusal to install higher fencing around the front garden. He said the boundary of his property was not safe as it faced a road and roundabout. The resident also said his windows, door, kitchen and flooring needed repairs.
24 March 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had inspected the property on 15 March 2023 and discussed repairs with the resident. It said it would: Visit the property on 19 April 2023 to consider fencing the front garden. It said it would reconsider to make more outdoor space available to the family. This was because the council was due to build an extension in his back garden, which would reduce its size. Carry out repairs to his windows and doors. Inspect the kitchen and flooring on 19 April 2024 for repairs needed. It said it would not replace the entire kitchen as it was not due for replacement.
8 and 15 June 2023	Through his MP, the resident complained that there had been no updates. He was unhappy that his children had no secure outdoor area to use and his kitchen still needed repairs.
28 July 2023	The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. It said: It had made a planning application for the front garden fencing and would update him on progress. The kitchen was not due for replacement, but it would inspect the kitchen for repairs needed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us on 3 April 2024 that the fencing had not been installed. He also said that the kitchen still needed repairs, and the landlord said it would not replace it for 10 years. On 26 January 2026 the resident confirmed the fencing had now been completed. He said the window repairs were still outstanding, and he wanted the landlord to replace the kitchen as it was in a poor condition.

 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 window repairs
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. The landlord appropriately responded the resident’s complaint about the windows at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. However, as he raised no further concerns, the landlord did not discuss the matter again within its stage 2 response. This was reasonable given that it was not aware of any outstanding concerns. However, as the matter was not discussed at stage 2, this complaint has not exhausted the complaints procedure. We are satisfied that this was not because of a complaint handling failure by the landlord and for that reason, we have made the decision not investigate this matter. If the resident remains unhappy about this, he may wish to contact the landlord and raise a new complaint accordingly.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of installing front garden fencing
Finding	Service failure

10. The resident has complained about the time taken by the landlord to install higher fencing to the front garden. The landlord initially declined the resident’s request in February 2022. This was reasonable given that its obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain.
11. When it investigated the stage 1 complaint, the landlord became aware that the council was due to build an extension in the resident’s back garden. As this would reduce the outdoor space available for his family, it acted reasonably to reconsider fencing the front garden. This showed that the landlord took the resident’s household’s needs into account.
12. Although the landlord was not obliged to replace the fence, once it agreed to do so, it was expected to honour this commitment and keep the resident updated with progress. The landlord’s communication was inadequate. On 19 May and 8 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord about the plans for the fence but there was no evidence it responded.   There was no evidence of it communicating with the resident about the fence until he escalated his complaint.
13. The landlord’s final stage complaint response said it would update the resident on the progress of the planning application. It received planning permission on 31 August 2023. There was no evidence that it updated the resident and he needed to chase it for an update on 26 February 2024. The landlord then responded on 4 April 2024, which was after an unreasonably long time.
14. In this response, the landlord asked the resident to tell it when his back garden extension was completed by the council so it could install the front garden fence. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the council’s building work was complete or nearly complete to prevent the works interfering with each other. However, it was unreasonable that it did not tell him earlier that it could not begin the fencing work until then. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations from the outset to minimise any disappointment.
15. The landlord completed the work to replace the front garden fencing and gates on 22 July 2024. This was a year after it agreed to do so in its final stage complaint response. The time taken to replace the fence was not because of a failing by the landlord. However, the landlord’s communication during this period was inadequate. As a result, it caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, and we have made an order of compensation – in line with our remedies guidance – which is aimed at putting things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs
Finding	Maladministration

16. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time of the complaint said it would complete all internal repairs within “an average of 9 days”. This does not give a clear timeframe for how long a resident could expect a non-emergency repair to take. We have therefore assessed what we think a reasonable timeframe would have been for the kitchen cabinet, worktop, and flooring repairs the resident reported, to be resolved considering all the circumstances.
17. The landlord was on notice of the kitchen repairs on 27 February 2023. It inspected the property on 15 March 2023. This was within a reasonable time given that there was nothing to indicate that the situation was an emergency. However, it is unclear why it did not agree and raise repairs at this visit. We accept that sometimes further inspections may be required to assess the repairs needed. However, the landlord should record the reason why to ensure it is acting appropriately and progressing repairs in a timely manner. It was reasonable that the landlord proposed in its stage 1 complaint response to inspect the property again on 19 April 2023.
18. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord also communicated that it would not be replacing the kitchen. It would be reasonable, and in keeping with its obligation to repair under the tenancy agreement, for a landlord to repair a kitchen, instead of replacing it, if it inspects and finds it is economical to do repairs.
19. However, there was no evidence the landlord inspected on 19 April 2023. It is the landlord’s responsibility to keep records of its repairs visits to show that it has acted appropriately. The landlord should have satisfied itself that the kitchen could be economically repaired. Since there was no inspection report of the kitchen, the landlord has not shown why it was satisfied that the kitchen did not need replacing. While its complaints responses said the kitchen was not due for replacement, it may have been appropriate to replace the kitchen if it was in a poor condition.
20. The resident needed to make additional effort to chase the repairs on 8 June 2023 before the landlord did a repair to overhaul kitchen cupboards on 15 June 2023. This delay was unreasonable since the landlord was aware of the repairs from 27 February 2023. We have seen no evidence which suggests that this delay was unavoidable.
21. The resident needed to escalate his complaint with the landlord to prompt it to address the remaining repairs in the kitchen. It was unreasonable that he needed to spend extra time and effort to progress the repairs. After the landlord’s final stage complaint response on 28 July 2023, it inspected the kitchen on 30 August 2023. We have not been provided with the report from this. As such, it is unclear what repairs and remedial works were identified.
22. The resident did not allow access for the landlord to do repairs on 4 September 2023. The reason the resident declined access is unclear, but it is noted that the landlord appropriately rearranged the works so they could be completed. Repairs to overhaul the kitchen worktops and replace the kitchen flooring were later completed on 31 October 2023 and 21 November 2023 to. While this was almost 3 months after the landlord’s final response, it is noted that rescheduling the repairs from September was outside of the landlord’s control.
23. The resident was caused inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s overall handling of the kitchen repairs, and we have therefore ordered a sum of compensation aimed at putting things right. In relation to the repairs, the resident has informed us that there are further repairs outstanding. It is unclear whether these were linked to the previous repairs, or if they are new issues. It is also unclear whether the resident had made the landlord aware of this. As such, we have made a recommendation accordingly.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

24. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaint policy mirror those set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. These are 10 working days for responding at stage 1, and 20 working days for responding at the final stage. At either stage it may extend the deadline by 10 working days if it tells the resident that it needs more time.
25. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 27 February 2023, and the landlord responded on 24 March 2023. This was 10 working days longer than the timeframe in its policy and the Code. However, considering the landlord visited the resident on 15 March 2023 to take steps to resolve the complaint, the delay was not excessive and did not affect the outcome at stage 1of the complaint process.
26. The landlord could reasonably have acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation sooner. He emailed it on 8 June 2023 to complain about progress, but no action in relation to the complaint was taken. If the landlord was unclear as to whether the resident wished to escalate his complaint, it should have sought clarification accordingly. The resident’s MP then emailed the landlord on 15 June 2023 before it acknowledged his complaint escalation on 19 June 2023. As such, while the landlord failed to escalate the complaint at the earliest opportunity, this did not, result in a significant delay in progressing the complaint. The landlord sent a holding letter to the resident on 17 July 2023 before sending him its final complaint response on 28 July 2023. These timeframes were broadly in line with its policy and our Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord did not provide reports from its inspections of the kitchen. It told us that it did not produce ‘day to day’ inspection reports at the time. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights that poor record keeping leads to poorer repairs outcomes for residents. The landlord told us that it now produces reports from its inspections. It is positive that the landlord has improved its processes. It may wish to periodically review its record keeping procedures to ensure it retains appropriate records of its repairs and inspections.

Communication

28. The landlord did not consistently reply to the resident’s contact. When it did, it did not respond promptly. Our spotlight report “Repairing Trust” highlights that poor communication can lead to frustration for residents when chasing repairs and damage the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord may wish to review its communication procedures against our spotlight report, if it has not done so already.