Moat Housing Group Limited (202116694)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116694

Moat Housing Group Limited

19 June 2023

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 landlord’s:
   1. handling of the replacement of the fence adjacent to a neighbouring property, and;
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association.
3. In June 2021, the landlord contacted the resident requesting he cut back some overgrown bushes and also remove anything attached to the neighbour’s fence panel on the resident’s side of the garden; this appeared to have resulted from contact made by the neighbour with the landlord.
4. The resident made an initial complaint on 16 August 2021 stating he was unhappy to receive a letter asking him to carry out work for something which the landlord is responsible (referring to previous issues with the fence from 2014, which resulted in the landlord fitting a secondary fence adjacent to the neighbour’s fence, and bamboo screening) and added that he was unhappy the neighbour’s fence panel was touching his shed. The resident also disputed that anything needed to be moved or removed to enable the neighbour to fix their fence and noted that bamboo screening was initially fitted by the landlord to cover up poor workmanship.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 30 September 2021. It said there was a missing fence post on the line of the landlord’s fence and that some of the bamboo screening made it difficult for the neighbour to move their fence panels, and accepted that these were errors made when it carried out works in 2014. It set out its plan to resolve the issue, saying it would contact the resident with an update. Additionally, it said it had spoken to the neighbour and requested that they move their end fence panel so that it no longer touched the resident’s shed.
6. Between October and November 2021, the resident and landlord exchanged a number of emails regarding the landlord’s proposals in its stage one response.  On 22 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident explaining itdecided to resolve the issue and that it would go ahead with the works. The landlord records show that on 9 November 2022 the works were scheduled for 29 and 30 November 2021.
7. On 29 November 2021, the resident was unhappy with how the landlord’s fence was being fitted because it included two half width panels at each end of the fencing run. The resident rang the landlord that day, having asked the contractor to stop the work, and advised that the contractor was not carrying out the work in accordance with a discussion he had had with the landlord as, instead of a run of full width fence panels, a half width panel was to be put at each end. The resident then allowed the fence works to go ahead even though he remained unhappy.
8. Dissatisfied with the stage one response and with the appearance of the new fence, the resident escalated his complaint on 20 December 2021. The landlord issued its stage two response on 10 January 2022. It apologised for the lack of communication regarding the change made to the fence panels despite the previous on-site agreement with the resident that these would be full panels, and offered £50 compensation for this. The resident had referred his complaint to this Service on 20 October 2021 and advised he wishes the landlord to pay financial compensation for the appearance of the fence, the neighbour dispute, and the way the landlord acted in order to resolve his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments that the fence issue stems back to 2014 when the landlord attached bamboo screening to the neighbour’s private fence as a resolution to a previous complaint. The Ombudsman recognises the resident has stated the fence issue has caused difficult neighbourly relations and the resident asserts the landlord has been instrumental in this. This Service will not be looking into matters that took place in 2014. This is in line with paragraph 42 (b) of the Scheme in which the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
10. Further, we will not investigate the neighbour dispute or any anti-social behaviour issues as this does not appear to have been investigated by the landlord and under paragraph 42 (a) this Service will not investigate complaints made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
11. This report will primarily concern the landlord’s handling of the installation of the replacement fence and its complaints handling. This timeframe is from when the landlord contacted the resident in June 2021 asking him to remove the bamboo screening up until the end of its internal complaints procedure in January 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the fence adjacent to a neighbouring property

12. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to attend a repair after being notified, carry out the necessary works in a timely manner and keep the resident informed throughout.
13. Having reviewed the emails available, it can be seen the landlord was frequently in dialogue with both the resident and its contractor between September 2021 and November 2021 establishing the best plan of action for the fence. The fence plan was initially quoted as a run of full width fence panels; however, when it came to install the replacement fence in November 2021, whilst on site, the contractor was mindful of the neighbour’s private fencing immediately adjacent to the landlord’s fence, and chose to fit a half width panel at one end so as not to undermine the footings of the neighbour’s fence; this resulted in a second half width panel needing to be installed at the other end of the fencing line. The contractor manager said there were no other solutions to this issue. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident disagreed with this comment.
14. The landlord is responsible for its contractor’s actions and it was not acceptable to change the plan without informing the resident prior to the works. The Ombudsman can appreciate the resident’s distress when told at the last minute that an agreed plan had changed. However, this Service also accepts that the half width panels were a practical consideration by the landlord’s contractor who was unwilling to potentially undermine the neighbour’s fencing. This was not unreasonable, but it remains the case that the landlord should have informed the resident of its intention to change the plan.
15. The Ombudsman notes that the period from when the initial complaint was raised in August 2021 to the completion of the fence in November 2021 was approximately three months, and this Service considers this to be a reasonable period of time for arranging and carrying out such an installation. Whilst this Service is aware the resident is dissatisfied with the appearance of the replacement fence with half width panels at each end, the fence functions as it should and does not impact the resident’s use of his property or garden. As such the adverse effect to the resident is minimal.
16. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to offer as part of its stage two response compensation in respect of its poor communication regarding the change in appearance of the replacement fencing. The Ombudsman considers the amount of £50 compensation offered to be appropriate as a remedy to this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

17. The obligations of a member landlord are set out in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 9 of the Scheme confirms that a member must manage complaints in accordance with its published procedure or within a reasonable timescale.

Complaint closure

18. During the complaints procedure, the resident raised concerns with the landlord when it stated it would close the complaint before the fence works had been completed. The landlord mentioned its ‘ongoing commitment to having the work carried out’ and that if the resident was happy with the outcome, there would not need to be any further action by him. The landlord advised the resident that if he was dissatisfied with the outcome, he could reopen his complaint at the same stage and would not have to wait for another stage one response.
19. This was discussed on 15 October 2021 and the landlord explained that there was no adverse effect on the resident of this procedure. The landlord explained that, when closing the complaint, it would record the resident’s concerns about the procedure and reassured him that it would closely monitor the fence repair. Then, should the resident wish to reopen his complaint he could do so at the same stage.
20. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s frustration with this approach as it may seem that the landlord was closing the complaint prematurely. However, as the resident was able to reopen his complaint at the same stage, the landlord was not treating him unfavourably. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s view, this approach is not unreasonable and was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Stage one response

21. The initial complaint was made on 16 August 2021 and a stage one response was issued on 30 September 2021. In line with its own complaints policy, the landlord should within ten working days have issued its stage one response or informed the resident that it needed an extension to the response period. The resident chased the landlord on 9 September 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not come to see him to discuss details. Having been prompted, the landlord replied the same day that it would not be able to complete the stage one response within the required time and informed him of an extension to 24 September 2021 which was not in fact met.
22. Overall, it took the landlord 34 working days to provide its stage one response. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the delays in its stage one response. Further, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it has ‘put things right’ or ‘learnt from outcomes’ in relation to the delays with its stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman considers the landlord actions were not in line with its policies, and that there was service failure when investigating the resident’s complaint at stage one, as the resident had to make additional efforts in order to progress his complaint and this was frustrating. An order has been made below for a remedy.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the fence satisfactorily.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

25. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £50 for service failure identified in its complaints handing.

Recommendations

26. The landlord must pay the £50 compensation as offered in its stage two response, if it had not already done so.
27. The landlord should conduct refresher staff training in dealing with complaints in line with its stipulated policy timeframes.