Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202303720)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303720

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

16 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to a fence.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a two bedroom semi-detached house.
On 31 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the property’s front boundary fence (the fence) required repair due to damage caused by a storm.
The landlord’s records document that between March 2022 and September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to chase the repair.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord’s internal records documented that the resident had requested to make a “formal complaint” about the time taken to complete the repair. The Ombudsman cannot see that a complaint was opened at that time.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on the status of the repair. In summary the landlord said:
1. There was “an outstanding repair logged for fencing”.
2. The repair was “still in the process of being reviewed” and had not yet been “appointed”.
3. It was sorry that the repair had been delayed and for any inconvenience caused as a result.
4. It “aimed to have [the] repair completed by March 2023”.
5. The delay was due to the “enormous challenges” its repair and maintenance team was facing. It explained that this included “covid and lockdown”, “major storms”, “a large reduction in staffing levels, regional skill shortages [and] issues appointing sub-contractors and sourcing materials”. It confirmed that it had therefore had to “prioritise emergency works and internal works”.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord attended the property to complete the repair.
On 28 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns regarding the repair. The landlord’s record of the contact documented that the resident raised the following issues:
1. The replacement fence had been put in the “wrong place and at an angle”.
2. The replacement fence was “at a slant”.
3. During the works to complete the repair “plants and bushes [had] been damaged”.
4. The replacement fence had been erected “between bushes”.
5. Bushes removed during the repair had not been taken away.
An internal email from the landlord on 29 March 2023 confirmed that it had “looked at [the] fence and there [was] nothing wrong with it structurally”. In addition the landlord noted that:
1. While the replacement fence was not in “quite the same place as the old one it [had] only been moved by about 300-400mm”. It explained that this was because the “old one used to step out”.
2. The ground was not flat therefore the replacement fence was on a slant.
3. Some “plants and bushes” had been disturbed however they looked “overgrown and untended”.
On 11 September 2023 the resident contacted this Service to request assistance in resolving his concerns regarding the repair. In summary the resident said:
1. The time taken to complete the repair was unacceptable.
2. The repair was not completed to a satisfactory standard which included incorrect positioning of the replacement fence and damage to bushes and plants.
3. Despite raising his concerns with the landlord it had not offered a solution.
On 4 December 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord providing details of the resident’s complaint. This Service requested that it respond under its complaint procedure if it had not already done so.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. In order to investigate the complaint it had reviewed the property’s repairs history and spoken to the site manager who oversaw the work.
2. The resident reported the repair on 31 January 2022 and the repair was completed on 27 March 2023.
3. During the period “December 2021 and February 2022” there were three storms which resulted in “a considerable number of reports to repair fences and properties”. It explained that as a result it had to prioritise its repairs service, focusing on “habitable” areas rather than “non-habitable areas”. It apologised for any inconvenient caused as a result.
4. In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of repair the site manager inspected the work completed. It set out that following the inspection the site manager confirmed that the fence was “erected satisfactorily and that no further action was required”. It noted that the resident was “advised of this at the time”.
5. In relation to damage caused to bushes and plants the resident should submit a “third-party claim” to its insurance team.
The landlord concluded by apologising and awarding £30 compensation in recognition of the time taken to complete the repair and to acknowledge the “distress and inconvenience caused” as a result.
On 11 January 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to request to escalate the complaint as he was unhappy with its response. He set out that he disagreed that the replacement fence had been erected satisfactorily. He noted that the work order had stated “4 metres of fence to be renewed – four posts and new gate” however only 3.6 metres of fencing had been installed with three posts.
The landlord’s internal records document that on 18 January 2024 it attended the property to take photographs of the replacement fence in relation to the resident’s complaint. On reviewing the photographs the landlord noted that:
1. It was “happy with [the] fence and the position of it”.
2. While the “original [fence was] further forward… what they [had] done [was] the current specification and [it would not] be arranging for anything to be done to it”.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord provided a second stage one response following a telephone call with the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. Following a review of photographs of the replacement fence it was “satisfied with [its] position”.
2. During the telephone call the resident noted that he was unhappy that the replacement fence was not like for like. It confirmed that it did not offer like for like replacements however it would always complete a repair with good quality materials.
3. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint. It would therefore like to award £20 compensation.
Following receipt of the landlord’s response the resident contacted the landlord, exact date not given, to report he did not accept its findings or its offer of compensation.
On 29 February 2024 the landlord provided its final response. It confirmed that following a review of the complaint documents it upheld its stage one response. It reiterated that the replacement fence was of the “required standard” and no further action would be taken. It confirmed that if the resident was unhappy with its response he may refer the matter to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs a fence

The landlord’s repair policy sets out that dividing fencing to the front and rear of a property is the responsibility of the tenant. The policy however also notes that in some circumstances it may make a decision to repair or replace fencing.
It is clear that when the resident reported that the fence had been damaged the landlord accepted responsibility for completing the repair as it raised a work order. On accepting the repairing responsibility the landlord was then required to complete the repair in accordance with its policies and procedures. The landlord’s repair log documents that the repair was given “routine” priority requiring the work order to be completed with 20 working days, as detailed in its repair policy.
The resident reported the repair on 31 January 2022 and the landlord completed the repair on 27 March 2023. This was a period of approximately 14 months. This was a significantly protracted period of time and did not comply with the landlord’s own timescale for routine repairs. This is unsatisfactory. While the landlord explained the reasons for the delay within its letter dated 8 December 2023 the Ombudsman does not accept that the challenges detailed would reasonably have resulted in a delay of more than a year.
The evidence shows that it was not until December 2022 that the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on the status of the repair. While an update was appropriate, including to provide an anticipated timescale for completion, it was unsatisfactory that the update was provided approximately 11 months after the repair was reported and only following multiple contacts by the resident. It would have been appropriate and best practice for the landlord to have ensured that the resident was updated at a much earlier time in order to manage his expectations.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of the repair the evidence shows that the landlord inspected the fence on 28 March 2023. This was an appropriate course of action to determine whether the repair had been completed to a satisfactory standard or not. Following the inspection it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the repair was satisfactory, and no further action would be taken, as its decision was based on an assessment of the work completed.
While the inspection did find that the replacement fence had deviated “300-400mm” from its original position, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to take corrective action to address this. This is because the deviation was not so significant that it would adversely impact on the resident or their occupancy of the property. Furthermore the Ombudsman notes that the fence separated the property’s front and rear garden only, and therefore the slight variation in the fence’s position did not affect the resident’s overall garden.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out that “where a decision is made to replace or repair a fence the style… will be based on which offers best for money”. Therefore it was reasonable that the replacement fence was not identical to the original fence. The landlord clearly explained this in its stage 2 response to the resident.
While the landlord’s position on the replacement fence, following the inspection, was reasonable, the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence that the resident was informed of its decision to take no further action. Following the inspection it would have been appropriate, and best practice, for the landlord to have written to the resident to clearly set out its position and to bring the matter to a close. In not doing so the resident was left unclear on the landlord’s position and next steps if he remained unhappy.
Within its stage one response dated 11 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in completing the repair and therefore apologised and awarded £30 compensation. As the landlord acknowledged a service failure it was appropriate that it apologised to demonstrate that it recognised the impact on the resident. It was also appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy which sets out that it may award discretionary compensation where a resident has experienced unnecessary inconvenience, distress or detriment. However in the Ombudsman’s opinion the level of compensation was not proportionate to the service failure and the impact on the resident. This includes delay in completing the repair and poor communication. The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord’s compensation policy sets out that awards of £50 to £250 are appropriate where it has failed to meet a service standard. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made an award within this range.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s request to repair a fence. The time taken to complete the repair was significantly protracted and the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident on the status of the repair while it was outstanding and following the inspection. While the landlord did recognise that time taken to complete the repair was protracted, and therefore apologised and awarded compensation, the level of compensation was not proportionate to the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Despite the landlord documenting that the resident wished to make a formal complaint on 1 November 2022 there is no evidence that it considered his concerns through its complaint procedure. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint process exists in order to ensure a resident’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and things are put right as soon as possible where it is found that something has gone wrong. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord wrote to the resident on 8 December 2022 to provide an update on the repair, this was not a substitute for a formal complaint response.
On receipt of the resident’s contact on 28 March 2023 it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to the concerns which he raised about the repair under its complaint procedure. This would have been in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy which sets out that a complaint should be opened where a resident “expresses dissatisfaction” about “the standard of service or lack of action”, which the resident did. In not doing so the landlord again denied the resident a formal response to the concerns which he was raising and was a missed opportunity to bring the matter to a close at an earlier time.
Following contact from this Service the landlord did respond to the resident’s concerns under its complaint procedure. While it was appropriate that the landlord responded to the complaint formally, it is unsatisfactory that in order to have his complaint responded to the resident was required to request intervention from this Service. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaint policy which sets out that it “welcomes complaints” so that it may put things right where mistakes have been made and to improve its services.
The evidence shows that the landlord provided two stage one responses, 11 December 2023 and 31 January 2024, and a final response on 29 February 2024. It is not clear why two stage one responses were provided. This resulted in a three stage complaint process. This is contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which sets out that a “process with more than two stages is not acceptable… as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to [this Service]”. The Ombudsman acknowledges that, while three complaint responses were provided, those responses were provided within the landlord’s service standards for responding to complaints.
In responding to the complaint the landlord awarded £20 compensation for delays in complaint handling. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that its complaint handling had not been satisfactory the Ombudsman does not consider that the award was proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because it does not accurately reflect the missed opportunities in responding to the complaint at a much earlier time and therefore the time and trouble the resident experienced in pursuing his concerns.
As part of his complaint the resident reported that bushes and plants were damaged during the repair. In response the landlord advised the resident to submit a claim to its insurers. While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the outcome of an insurance claim, as this Service cannot determine liability, this Service will consider whether it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue an insurance claim. As the resident alleged damage caused to his personal belongings which the landlord denied it was fair and appropriate for it to advise him to pursue an insurance claim. This is because an insurance claim will establish negligence and/ or liability to pay.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord missed opportunities to respond to the resident’s complaint on several occasions, only providing a response following intervention from this Service. Further the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. While the landlord did acknowledge that its handling of the complaint had been unsatisfactory, the level of redress was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for repairs to a fence.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation. There was a delay in repairs service, poor communication and poor complaint handling.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £200 compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination. This figure comprises the £50 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £150 comprising:
1. £70 in recognition that the landlord delayed in completing the repair to fix the fence and failed to appropriately communicate with the resident about the delay which will have caused him distress and inconvenience as a result.
2. £80 in recognition of poor complaint handling and the time, trouble and uncertainty the resident will have experienced as a result.