Community Gateway Association Limited (202127389)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127389

Community Gateway Association Limited

27 September 2022


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 response to the resident’s request to install a boundary fence around her garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s property is a three-bedroom house with a garden made up of hedges and a metal fence to the rear.
  2. In July 2020, the resident reported some leaks in her property. Works were undertaken shortly after; however, the contractors that attended the property left the tap on in the utility room, which caused damage to the resident’s doll house and washing machine, worth approximately £100. The resident and the landlord agreed that by way of compensation, the landlord would carry out works to her garden. These works were not confirmed in writing. The landlord also undertook additional works as a goodwill gesture.
  3. On 24 March 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. The resident complained she had also requested a fence for her garden, but that the landlord had subsequently refused to install the fence.
  4. In its stage one response, issued on 11 April 2022, the landlord explained that the works carried out were valued at approximately £1,000 and, therefore, it considered these to amount to appropriate redress for the damage to the washing machine and doll house. Furthermore, the landlord explained that its fencing policy noted that it would not install boundary fencing where there was none before. The landlord also advised that the resident could replace the hedge with fencing at her own cost by submitting a request in writing. The landlord reiterated its position in its stage two response.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this service as she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to fence her garden.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that residents must keep their garden well maintained at all times. It is the resident’s responsibility for maintaining all parts of the garden, including grass, plants, bushes, hedges, and trees. The resident must keep hedges at a manageable height (no more than one metre high at the front of your home, and no more than 1.8 metres at the back). The tenancy agreement further states that residents must obtain the landlord’s written permission before putting up or taking down any fence or wall.
  2. The landlord’s fencing policy states that the landlord is not responsible for erecting any boundary fencing where there has been none previously. The policy clarifies that the landlord will consider requests on a case-by-case basis to see if there are special circumstances to erect new fencing, “for example, there may be long standing anti-social behaviour issues where fencing may be seen as a solution.”

Boundary fence request

  1. Following the damage caused to the resident’s washing machine and doll’s house, the resident requested for the landlord to carry out some work to her garden, instead of receiving financial compensation. The parties agreed for the landlord to cut the grass and the hedge in the resident’s garden to get them to a maintainable standard (which would usually be the resident’s responsibility). The works carried out by the landlord were valued at £1,000. It is evident that the resident later made a request for a fence to be erected, however, from the context of the correspondence provided to this service, It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the scope of works discussed between the landlord and the resident would be limited to cutting the grass and the hedges.
  2. Although it is clear from the evidence that the resident was aware of the scope of works, it is evident these were only discussed verbally. It would have been best practice for the landlord to have clarified the scope of works in writing. This would have avoided the resident’s confusion and any expectations regarding the fence. The landlord, in its stage one response, acknowledged that the communications between itself and the resident had been a mixture of phone calls and emails, which could have caused confusion for the resident. It was appropriate, therefore, for the landlord to commit for any future communications to be in writing only, to avoid any confusion.
  3. As part of her request for a fence, the resident noted it would provide her with more privacy in her garden. The landlord’s fencing policy states that the landlord is not responsible for erecting boundary fencing. The fencing policy further clarifies that the landlord may consider such requests in instances such as anti-social behaviour, where fencing would help solve this issue. Based on the evidence provided, no such issues were reported in this instance. It was therefore reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to decline the resident’s request.
  4. The resident further reported in her escalation request that, although a fence would not be provided on the basis of compensation, she felt that a fence was necessary to be installed by the landlord, as there were many holes in her hedge. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns by relying on the photographs taken of the hedge following the works. The landlord noted that following the works, it considered that the hedge was now in a satisfactory state and that it considered it to be a suitable boundary. While the resident may disagree, as noted previously, the landlord is not obliged to install a fence and it was reasonable that it provided an explanation for its position.
  5. In summary, while it would have been helpful to have clarified in writing what works had initially been agreed to, the landlord subsequently provided clear explanations for its decision to decline the resident’s request for a fence, in line with its policy. It also appropriately advised the resident she could request permission for a fence, at her own cost.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to install a boundary fence around her garden.