Great Places Housing Association (202207174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207174

Great Places Housing Association

6 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement fencing.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She is being represented by her son. Any actions taken by the representative shall be viewed as actions taken on behalf of the resident.
3. On 21 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask if it would replace her garden fencing. The landlord raised a repair order for the property, which stated ‘please attend to fence panels which have broken’. The landlord attended on 29 June 2022, to find that the resident had already removed and disposed of the fencing. As the landlord could not assess the condition of the fencing to ascertain if it had needed to be replaced, it refused to carry out the fence renewal.
4. The resident complained on 29 June 2022, stating that she had not been told that the fence needed to be assessed before it could be replaced. She had thought removing the fence panels would be helpful to the landlord. As an outcome, the resident wanted the landlord to replace the fencing. The resident later stated that the landlord’s decision to not renew the fence panels was an act of discrimination towards her.
5. The landlord responded on 15 July 2022. It explained that it had reviewed the call between itself and the resident when booking the fence repair appointment. It stated that the resident had been advised that an appointment would be arranged “for someone to look at your fencing”. It explained that it did not advise the resident to remove the fence panels, nor did it advise that it would be replacing the panels during the call. It stated that a repair was raised to assess the condition of the fencing, as it would only replace panels that were beyond economic repair. Because it could no longer assess the state of the panels, the landlord informed the resident that she was now responsible for replacing them.
6. The resident stated that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 15 July 2022. She stated that the appointment had been to replace the fence, not to assess it. She felt that it was unfair of the landlord to assume that she had an intimate knowledge of its internal processes. The landlord responded on 11 August 2022 with its final response. It stated that it had reviewed its handling of the complaint and found that it had followed its policies and procedures correctly. It reiterated that it needed to approve replacement of the fences before they were removed. As such the landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint and signposted the resident to this Service.
7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that she believes that the landlord has not replaced his fencing due to discriminating against her.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has raised new issues to this Service concerning the landlord gaining access to her garden without notice. This is a new issue that was not covered by the landlord’s final response. As such, it cannot be considered by this Service, as under paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident should continue with the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, in order to give the landlord the opportunity to identify any errors and put them right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement fencing.

9. According to the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord is responsible for keeping the boundary walls, gates and fences in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord would therefore be expected to keep the resident’s fence panels well maintained. When the resident reported the fences’ poor condition in June 2022, the landlord would be expected to attend within a reasonable time and inspect the fencing (the landlord has not provided repair timescales, but in general it would be expected to attend within 28 days of the report).
10. The landlord is a social housing provider and needs to balance the costs of its actions against its repair obligations. As such, the landlord would be expected to consider if the fencing could be repaired, before deciding to replace the entire fencing area. This would be accurate of any repair report raised by a resident, as the landlord will always send a qualified operative to inspect a reported repair, to ensure that the correct works are undertaken.
11. After receiving the resident’s report on 21 June 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by attending within eight days on 29 June 2022. When it arrived, it found that the fences had already been disposed of, and the resident had not kept any evidence to show its condition. Although the resident reported the fencing after seeing her neighbour’s panels being replaced, this would not have guaranteed that her own fence was in the same condition and would also have been replaced.
12. The landlord’s repair policy states that it may recover costs from residents to pay for repairs that they are responsible for, or which arise from their actions. This can be from deliberate acts by them, or any improvements made to the home without the landlord’s permission. As such, the landlord acted appropriately by stating that the resident was now responsible for replacing the fencing, as the resident did not have permission to remove the fencing.
13. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint response by explaining that it could only replace fencing where it made economic sense to do so. It explained that as the resident had disposed of the fence, it could not assess if it needed to have been repaired rather than replaced. It acted reasonably by reviewing the information it had available, to ascertain what promises it had made to the resident. It listened to the call where the fencing appointment was booked. The landlord concluded that it had not told the resident that it would replace her fencing, it also clarified that it had not asked the resident to remove the fencing at any point during the call. The landlord reviewed the repair logs, finding that the repair raised stated that it should ‘attend to fence panels which have broken’. As such, the landlord acted reasonably by concluding that it had not made any undertaking to the resident to replace the panels at any point.
14. The landlord has followed its policies and procedures and has applied them in a reasonable manner. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have discussed with the resident her accusations of discrimination, and assured her that it was applying its policies in the normal manner.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

15. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint has been accepted for investigation by this Service. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, stage one responses should be provided within 10 working days from acknowledgement of the complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate to stage two of the procedure. The landlord should send its final response within 20 working days.
16. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) states that landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman.
17. The resident complained on 29 June 2022, with the landlord responding within the above timeframes on 15 July 2022. After the resident’s escalation on 15 July 2022, the landlord reviewed its application of its policies and concluded that it had followed them correctly in this regard. It concluded that there was no other outcome that could be reached and so decided not to escalate the complaint. It replied again within the correct timescales on 11 august 2022, where it explained that this was its final response and signposted the resident to this Service. The landlord acted in-line with its own procedures and with the code. Therefore, its handling of the complaint in this case was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for replacement fencing.
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.