GreenSquareAccord Limited (202302023)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302023

GreenSquareAccord Limited

29 February 2024

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 handling of the resident’s concerns that fencing has been installed over the boundary line of the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been assured tenant at the property for over 30 years. It is a 2–bedroomed semi-detached house. There are disabilities within the household.
The landlord is the legal owner of the land and boundaries between the property and the next–door property.
Following a visit by a landlord surveyor, on 8 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident about the positioning of fencing in the garden of the property. At its visit, it had determined that the first 6 metres of boundary fencing, which it understood had been erected by the resident, was approximately 21 cm over the party line between her and the neighbouring property. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of this survey, which indicates that the fencing may have in fact been 26 cm over the party line.
The landlord noted that the party line is usually marked by the downpipe between properties. It provided an image of the property, showing that the fence was not in line with the downpipe.
It said that it was only the first 6 metres of fence panels that needed to be moved back and said the resident had until 30 November 2021 to complete the work.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2021, saying that she was in ill health and could not make the alterations. She also said that the fence was in disrepair. Ultimately, the landlord agreed to replace the full fence.
The records show the landlord visited the property again on 2 December 2021. A note was made that a boundary needed to be marked between the property and the neighbouring property “…for the first 6 metres at least.”
On 14 December 2021 a surveyor visited the property. He reported that the boundary was correct, except for a section of garden next to the property which was a “couple of feet wider than stated on [its Geographic Information System, (GIS)].”
On 15 December 2021 an internal note on the landlord’s systems said that there should be no further requirement for involvement with surveyors.
The landlord considered that the correct measurements had been established from both sides of the boundary and the landlord had requested that a chain link fence was reinstated. This was later changed to a wooden boundary fence.
On 31 March 2022, before the change went ahead, the landlord double-checked with its surveyor to ensure that the fence would follow the correct boundary line when installed. It was noted that, on the landlord’s GIS, the first 6 metres of the fence nearest the property dog legged inwards slightly. The surveyor said this was the section of the fence that was found to be approximately 21 cm into the next-door property garden. It said that it was believed that the rest of the fence was in the correct position because of the position of concrete boundary markers on the other side of the property fence.
On 13 and 14 April 2022 the landlord’s operatives arrived at the property to install the fence. They returned again on 19 and 20 April 2022 to finish the work.
On 20 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say the operatives had incorrectly placed the fence not on the boundary but inside her garden.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 April 2022, but the call had to be cut short. The landlord says that on 27 April 2022, the resident said she wanted to close the case. It is not clear why.
The landlord said that, in any event, it had reviewed the fencing work that had been carried out. This review included looking at before and after photographs. It said these confirmed that the new posts “…had been installed in the exact location as the originals and the fence was now in the correct original position.”
The landlord’s records show that the resident then called it on 1 September 2022. Confusingly, the records say that the resident reported that the fence had been put up on that day and it was too far into her garden. The call operator placed a note on file saying, “…please can we arrange for someone to go back out and ensure the fencing is on the boundary line and not over on either side of the garden.” It was also noted that the resident said the tradesmen that attended were rude to the resident and her husband when she queried the fence position.
On 20 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again, repeating that the position of the fence was incorrect. She said the fence should have been moved 8 inches but was moved a foot and a half meaning that it now gave 10 inches of her garden to her neighbour. She did not receive a response and chased the landlord for this on 21 February, 1 and 3 March 2023. She complained that she had not been contacted and said that her neighbour was now building a patio that would encroach onto her land.
A note on the landlord’s system records that the case was raised by customer services to the surveying team. However, the landlord says that, “…regrettably, it appears no surveyor visit took place to check the location of the fence.”
On 14 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 27 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again about the position of the fence and the lack of contact.
The landlord said that it would use its discretion to look into the resident’s complaint even though it was about an issue that had arisen more than 6 months ago. In its Step 2 complaint response, it partly upheld the resident’s complaint because it said its response to her complaint had fallen below the expected standard. However, it said it considered the fence had been placed in the right position.
On 29 March 2023 the resident responded to say she did not agree with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said the photographs the landlord had of the positioning of the fence did not reflect the situation. It was not entirely clear from her email, but it appears she considered the landlord had incorrectly used the concrete markers in the land as a guide for where to place the fence. She said she had told the operatives who installed the fence that they had put it in the wrong place.
She added other elements to her complaint, saying that the operatives who had attended had been rude.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord responded saying it would escalate the complaint to its step 3 for executive review.
On 6 April 2023, internal records show that the person completing the review requested further clarification. The resident was informed that the other issues she had recently raised were not part of this complaint and would be treated separately as a step 2 complaint.
The resident informed the landlord of her further concerns about the fence, which were that, because it was now much closer to her sunroom, she was unable to maintain it.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord provided its executive review response. It said that it considered the fence was now in the correct position because:
1. Of the evidence the reviewer had seen which included photographs of the original fence posts and the marks on the wall from the original position.
2. The land registry documents showed that the boundary at the property had never been straight and has always kinked towards the bottom of the house.
The landlord said it appreciated that the “correct position” of the fence may mean it would not be as easy for the resident to maintain her sunroom. However, it said that this should have been a consideration when the resident was erecting the sunroom. It said that if she had any evidence of that consideration, it would review the matter further.
It said the other issues she had raised about structural work at the house were not part of her original complaint and would have to be dealt with separately. Further, it said that it was concerned about the resident’s reports of rude behaviour from its operatives. It said that if she would like it to investigate this further, it would do so. The landlord says the resident has not pursued this.
The resident also obtained pictures from the land registry. However, these appeared to show a straight boundary line. At the bottom of the pictures provided by the resident, it says, “the title plan shows the general position, not the exact line, of the boundaries.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s records show that the resident was not necessarily averse to moving the position of the fence. It appears she accepted that it could be moved 21 cm. However, she was concerned that she felt the operatives who attended to move the fence, actually moved it about 46 cm into the property garden. She is also concerned that the land registry documents she obtained copies of do not show the same dog leg lean towards her property as the land registry documents the landlord provided.
Following further enquiry from the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided a copy of its GIS. It shows the boundary line between the properties is not straight. It has also provided supporting images from a planning application lodged at the local council. These also show that the boundary between the properties is not straight and that there is a dog leg lean towards the property where the resident resides. The land registry document the resident obtained has a disclaimer at the bottom of the document setting out that it does not necessarily accurately show the position of a boundary at a property.
However, the records are unclear about how far the fence should have been moved and then in fact was moved towards the property. To illustrate:
1. The survey conducted on 2 September 2021 appears to show that the boundary would need to be moved 26 cm, not 21 cm.
2. The surveyor who attended on 14 December 2021 considered the boundary needed to be moved “a couple of feet” towards the resident’s garden, which would be about 60 cm.
3. The resident said the boundary was in fact moved a foot and a half, which would be 45.72cm.
The landlord failed to revisit the property after the resident raised her concerns. Although a request to its survey team was made, a survey “regrettably” did not go ahead. This was inappropriate as it has left the resident feeling that her concerns were not properly addressed. We have ordered that a survey should be conducted to ensure that the fence is in the correct position and resolve the matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns that fencing has been installed over the boundary line of the property.

Reason

The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to double-check that it had installed a fence at the property in the correct place and not too far into her garden space. The landlord failed to send a surveyor to check the measurements were correct, which has caused the resident distress.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should visit the property and check that the fence installation in April 2022 was in line with its GIS measurements and in the correct place. Within 2 weeks of the survey it should provide a report to the resident confirming the position.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should also pay the resident £200 to acknowledge the distress caused by its failure to send a surveyor to confirm whether the boundary had been placed in the correct place.